Ex Parte Arora et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2016

13019757 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/019,757 02/02/2011 NEHARARORA
72623 7590 03/24/2016
MOSER TABOADA I VON AGE HOLDINGS CORP,
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
V054 1040
EXAMINER
DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEHAR ARORA, DANIEL GRISINGER,
and NIRA V KADAKIA
Appeal2014-005055
Application 13/019,757
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KEVIN C. TROCK, and MICHAEL M.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005055
Application 13/019,757
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1 and 11 under appeal read as follows (emphasis
added):
1. A method for providing unified communication event
management comprising:
receiving a communication message in a first format;
converting the communication message to a generic message
where the generic message is stored in a destination-agnostic format;
determining one or more message destinations based on a set of
routing rules;
determining one or more message formats based on the
determined one or more message destinations;
converting the generic message into a converted message where
the converted message is stored in the one or more message formats
associated with the one or more determined message destinations;
and
transmitting the converted message to the one or more
determined message destinations.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining one or
more message destinations step further comprises:
receiving a set of location information sufficient to determine a
location of a user;
determining the location of the user from the location
information; and
selecting a message destination based upon the location of the
user.
2
Appeal2014-005055
Application 13/019,757
Rejections1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Carey et al. (US 6,714,793 Bl; issued
Mar. 30, 2004) and Hullfish et al. (US 2005/0114533 Al; published May 26,
2005).2
The Examiner rejected claims 6-11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Carey, Hullfish, and Kung et al. (US
6,373,817 Bl; published Apr. 16, 2002) ("Kung '817"). 3
The Examiner rejected claims 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kung et al. (EP 1113631 A2;
published July 4, 2001) ("Kung '631"), Carey, and Kung '817.4
1 Although the Final Action and Appeal Brief repeatedly refer to claim 19 as
being rejected \vith claims 6-11, 1A..ppellants recognize that claim 19 is no\v
amended to depend from claim 12, and address it as rejected therewith.
App. Br. 9 and 11-12.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-5. Except for our ultimate
decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 6-10. Rather, Appellants
address these claims only by referencing the arguments for their
"independent claim l" (App. Br. 10). Thus, the rejection of these claims
turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, these
claims are not discussed further herein.
4 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 12-20. Rather, Appellants
address these claims only by referencing repeatedly the arguments for
claim 1 (App. Br. 11-12). Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our
decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are
not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2014-005055
Application 13/019,757
Appellants' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he system in Carey performs an analysis to determine the
format of the message. If the message does not meet the
criteria, it is identified as an email and processed accordingly
(i.e. "as email for cell phones"). (Id.) Thus, converting the
formatted data to be sent as email for cell phones as described
in Carey clearly does not teach converting a communication
message to a generic message format that is stored in a
destination-agnostic format.
App. Br. 8.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
In addition, if the formatted data does include address
data assigned to an instant message routing server in Carey,
"the formatted data is reformatted according to the predefined
protocol used to communicate information between the short
message service center 32 and the instant message routing
server [24]." (Id.) That is, the predefined protocol is a specific
destination dependent protocol used to communicate
information between the short message service center and the
instant message routing server. Thus, as used in Carey, the
formatted data reformatted according to "the predefined
protocol" does not teach or make obvious a generic message
that is stored in a destination-agnostic format.
App. Br. 8.
3. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he portion of Kung cited by the Office [col. 34, 11. 20-25 and
col. 35, 11. 6-18] in no way teaches or make obvious receiving a
set of location information sufficient to determine the location
of a user, determining the location of the user from the location
4
Appeal2014-005055
Application 13/019,757
information, and selecting a message destination based upon the
location of the user.
App. Br. 11.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 11 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
Although we find the Examiner's responses (Ans. 17-25) 5 to be decidedly
unhelpful, we disagree with Appellants' conclusions.
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we disagree with Appellants'
conclusory assertion that "converting the formatted data to be sent as email
for cell phones as described in Carey clearly does not teach converting a
communication message to a generic message format that is stored in a
destination-agnostic format." Reply Br. 3, Appellants' emphasis omitted,
Panel's emphasis added. Such unsupported attorney argument, is entitled to
little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further,
although Appellants' argument states a "generic message format" and a
"destination-agnostic format," which implies two formats, we only find one
5 For example, the Examiner repeatedly references In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 ("cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually") (Ans. 19, 21, and 24 ), yet we find the holding in Keller to
have no pertinent relevance to addressing Appellants' arguments.
5
Appeal2014-005055
Application 13/019,757
format in the actual claim 1 limitation of "a generic message where the
generic message is stored in a destination-agnostic format."
As to Appellants' above contention 2, we disagree. First, Appellants'
Specification provides no specific definition of the term "destination-
agnostic format." Our review finds the term used only once in the
Specification and that is as a restatement of the claim limitation of claim 1 as
originally filed. ("The generic message is stored in a destination agnostic
format.") Spec. 2. However, we do find throughout Appellants'
Specification references to and definition of a "generic format" (Spec. 2, 5,
11, and 12), which we equate to the claimed "destination agnostic format."
Appellants state "[t]he generic format may include any format capable of
being passed across a data network, such as an XML document, an email, or
the like." Spec. 11. Appellants do not dispute that the "predefined protocol"
of Carey meets this definition of "generic format."
Second, Appellants are mistaken in arguing "the predefined protocol
[of Carey] is a specific destination dependent protocol used to communicate
information between the short message service center and the instant
message routing server." App. Br. 8. Appellants overlook that in their
Specification they use the term "destination" to refer to the user destination
of a message (Spec. 2), and not to intermediate transmission locations. An
artisan would recognized the "instant message routing server" in Carey as an
intermediate transmission location, and is not a user destination of the
message. Therefore, the predefined protocol of Carey is a not a specific
destination dependent protocol in the way Appellants use those terms.
Turning again to contention 1, consistent with our above discussion of
contention 2, we find persuasive the Examiner's finding that Carey's
6
Appeal2014-005055
Application 13/019,757
disclosure of reformatting data "according to the predefined protocol used to
communicate information between the short message service center 32 and
the instant message routing server 24" (col. 5, 11. 39--42) teaches claim 1 's
"converting the communication message to a generic message where the
generic message is stored in a destination-agnostic format" requirement. See
Final Act. 3; Ans. 19.
As to Appellants' above contention 3, Appellants present unsupported
attorney assertion, which is entitled to little probative value. Our review of
Kung '817 finds Kung to be highly relevant. Although Appellants quote
from column 34, lines 20-25, and column 35, lines 6-18, which discuss
Figures 7 (a) and 7 (b) of Kung '817, Appellants overlook the remaining
discussion of Figure 7(a) at column 34, line 25, through column 35, line 5.
As did the Examiner (see Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 22-23), we conclude that the
limitations of claim 11 would have been obvious in light of the teaching of
"chase me" (and "follow me") IP addressing in Kung '817 (in combination
with Carey and Kung '631 ).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-20 are not patentable.
7
Appeal2014-005055
Application 13/019,757
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED6
6 Should there be further prosecution of this application, we note that the
process of messaging using a generic format as an intermediate format for
translation from a first format to a second format is well-known in the
communication art as shown by the following patent documents respectively
directed to network message processing (two documents), voice message
processing, and report message processing; and respectively assigned to
Nokia, Intel, Nortel, and Google.
Pajunen et al. (US 2009/0216840 Al; pub. 8-27-2009) (Abstract; i-f 13);
Anantha-Raju et al. (US 7,580,423 B2; filed 9-30-2005) (Abstract);
Brody et al. (US 6,278,697 Bl; pub. 8-21-2001) (col. 15, 11. 47---60); and
Beans et al. (US 8,538,414 Bl; filed 7-17-2007) (col. 11, 11. 55---67).
8