Ex Parte Balasaygun

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

12835016 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/835,016 07/13/2010 Mehmet C. Balasaygun 4366-509 9520
48500 7590 12/29/2016
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
WANG, LIANG CHE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2016 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):
cjacquet@ sheridanross.com
pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com
edocket @ sheridanross .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHMET C. BALASAYGUN1
Appeal 2015-004730
Application 12/835,016
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—10 and 12—22, which constitute all of the pending claims in this
appeal. App. Br. 1. Claim 11 has been canceled. Claims App’x. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004730
Application 12/835,016
Introduction
Appellant states the invention relates to “determining when a
message, for example, in an email box, voicemail, or in general any location,
is stale and performing one or more specific actions upon the determination
being made that the message is stale.” Spec 11. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method for modality independent enhancing of
communications comprising:
receiving one or more messages from one or more
sources;
evaluating factors comprising a calendar information
associated with the one or more messages and further
comprising at least one of user actions, presence information,
and real-world activities, wherein the calendar information is
distinct from each of the user actions, the presence information,
and the real-world activities, wherein each of the user actions,
the presence information, and the real-world activities include
information in addition to dates and times, wherein the
evaluation of the calendar information and at least one of the
user actions, the presence information, and the real-world
activities indicates whether the one or more messages are stale;
and
managing the one or more stale messages in a predefined
manner, wherein the predefined manner comprises actions in
addition to deletion of the one or more stale messages.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App’x).
Rejection
Claims 1—10 and 12—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hickson (US 6,094,694; issued
July 25, 2000) and Yigang (US 2010/0287249 Al; published Nov. 11, 2010).
Final Act. 2—6.
2
Appeal 2015-004730
Application 12/835,016
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, inter alia,2 the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1
because “Hickson is silent regarding evaluating based on factors comprising
at least one of user actions, presence information, and real-world activities,
where these factors are distinct from calendar information,” as recited. App.
Br. 6.; see also Reply Br. 4—5. We agree with Appellant.
Claim 1 recites that “each of the user actions, the presence
information, and the real-world activities” (hereafter, collectively the “non­
calendar information factors”) must include “information in addition to dates
and times.” In other words, a non-calendar information factor must include
three separate things: (1) information, (2) two or more dates, and (3) two or
more times.
In rejecting claim 1, for the non-calendar information factor, the
Examiner identifies “current date/time” from Hickson as “presence
information.” Final Act. 3, Ans. 7. Hickson discloses “a method for
eliminating time-expired messages from a message queue.” 2:58—60. The
Examiner errs in relying solely on Hickson’s current date/time for the claim
l’s non-calendar information, which, as discussed above, must include
information in addition to dates and times.
We also agree with Appellant that Yigang, which teaches using an
expiration time in addition to a user-designated action such as automatic
deletion of a message, does not cure the deficiency of Hickson insofar as
teaching the claimed dates and times in addition to the non-calendar
information factor. See Reply Br. 6—8.
2 Because our analysis of the argued limitation discussed infra is dispositive
for our decision, we do not address Appellant’s other arguments.
3
Appeal 2015-004730
Application 12/835,016
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For
the same reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the other
independent claims, 12 and 13, each of which include the same limitation
and stand rejected on the same grounds (see Final Act. 6). We also,
accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims, 2—10 and
14—22.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-10 and 12-22.
REVERSED
4