Ex Parte Bellows

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

12338935 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/338,935 12/18/2008 Gregory H. Bellows
77351 7590 08/29/2018
IBM CORP. (AUS)
C/0 THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC
2313 ROOSEVELT DRIVE
SUITE A
ARLINGTON, TX 76016
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.
AUS920080154US 1 6328
EXAMINER
MAPA,MICHAEL Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte GREGORYH. BELLOWS 1
Appeal2017-000491
Application 12/338,935
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as International Business Machines
Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-000491
Application 12/338,935
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to "a system and method for
improved telephone handset contact list synchronization." Spec. ,r 1.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method, comprising:
selecting, by a first telephone handset, a second
telephone handset as an approved contact exchange partner;
wherein the first telephone handset and the second
telephone handset comprise contact information organized in a
database;
establishing a fax telephone call between the first
telephone handset and the second telephone handset, the fax
telephone call including an identifier indicating to the second
telephone handset that the fax telephone call is a contact
synchronization call with the second telephone handset;
receiving, by the first telephone handset, via the fax
telephone call contact update information from the second
telephone handset in a first protocol; and
synchronizing, by the first telephone handset, the contact
update information with the contact information of the first
telephone handset.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the teachings of Lin (US 2005/0096071 Al;
May 5, 2005), Kenmochi (US 5,854,830; Dec. 29, 1998), and Noguchi (US
2005/0041643 Al; Feb. 24, 2005).
2
Appeal2017-000491
Application 12/338,935
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 16 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the teachings of Lin, Kenmochi, Noguchi, and
Muller (US 2004/0152445 Al; Aug. 5, 2004).
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 1 7, and 18 are rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the teachings of Lin,
Kenmochi, Noguchi, and Walter (US 6,151,677; Nov. 21, 2000).
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 13, and 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Lin, Kenmochi, Noguchi, and Chen
(US 2008/0215694 Al; Sept. 4, 2008).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Lin, Kenmochi, and Noguchi
disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Final Act. 3-
8).
Appellant contends "Lin appears to disclose a method for exchanging
information between two telephones. (Lin, abstract) In Lin, the exchange is
made over a voice channel. (Lin, abstract, paragraph 0006)," "Kenmochi
appears to disclose an apparatus that is capable of facsimile communication,
voice communication, and concurrent voice/fax communication. (Kenmochi,
abstract)," and "Noguchi appears to disclose that in a fax communication,
the sender may include an identifier indicating 'capability information.'
(Noguchi, paragraph 0031 )." App. Br. 5---6. Appellant then asserts "the
identifier relied on by the Examiner in Noguchi appears to relate to
synchronizing the mode of communication between the caller and
receiver {e.g., highspeed or not) - not a notification to the receiver as to the
type or purpose of the call (e.g., a contact synchronization call)." App. Br.
6. Therefore, Appellant contends, the combination of the references "fail to
3
Appeal2017-000491
Application 12/338,935
disclose 'establishing a fax telephone call between the first telephone
handset and the second telephone handset, the fax telephone call including
an identifier indicating to the second telephone handset that the fax
telephone call is a contact synchronization call with the second
telephone handset' as recited by Claim 1." Id. We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings both in
the Final Action and the Answer. Final Act. 3-15; Ans. 2-12. Particularly,
we agree Appellant is arguing the references separately. For example, the
Examiner finds Lin discloses "the device has 'data/fax capabilities,"'
indicating the two terms are interchangeable, and thus the call data operation
can be performed using the fax protocol, contrary to Appellant's assertion.
Ans. 7; App. Br. 5---6, Reply Br. 3. Further, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, Lin indicates an identifier is being used to distinguish between the
various buttons that are pressed. Ans. 9 (citing "Lin. Fig. 5 & [0037]
indicating that the various functionalities of pushing data, synchronizing
data and receiving data and determining which buttons were pressed. clearly
suggests that the system utilizes some sort of identifier in order to make the
distinction between the various pushing, synchronizing and receiving data
operation" (emphases omitted)); see also Final Act. 7 (citing ,r 42 "Lin,
[0042] discloses the wireless device sending a message requesting the list of
items available for synchronizing and indicating the identity of the item that
the wireless device desires to synchronize" (emphases omitted)). We find
that Figure 5 and paragraphs 37 and 42 of Lin disclose the claim limitation
"including an identifier indicating to the second telephone handset that the
fax telephone call is a contact synchronization call" as claimed, contrary to
Appellant's contention in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief (App. Br. 6;
4
Appeal2017-000491
Application 12/338,935
Reply Br. 4 ). Thus, the Examiner has sufficiently provided evidence and
articulated a rational basis to support the finding that the combination of Lin,
Kenmochi, and Noguchi teaches the claimed identifier, which Appellant
does not persuasively rebut.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15, argued for substantially
the same reasons, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, argued for
their dependency on the independent claims. App. Br. 7-8.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5