Ex Parte Bogdanovic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 6, 2016

12813022 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/813,022 06/10/2010 Ivan Dean Bogdanovic
69713 7590 07/08/2016
OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP
321 Summer St.
Boston, MA 02210
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.
30006-031001 6062
EXAMINER
JOSHI, SURAJ M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/08/2016 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):
INFO@ORPATENT.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IV AN DEAN BOGDANOVIC, DEREK MACDONALD,
and JOHN BRATT
Appeal2015-002105
Application 12/813,022
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EV ANS, and ALEX S.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Bridgeport Networks,
Inc. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2015-002105
Application 12/813,022
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to a method and device for "proxying a
data message between the first user device and a presence server; extracting,
from the data message, information indicative of an availability of the user;
and routing user communication data to at least one of the first user device
and the second user device based at least in part on the extracted
information." (Spec. 1.)
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' invention, and is reproduced
below:
1. A method for routing user communication data to a user
associated with at least a first user device and a second user
device operable in a communication system, the method
compnsmg:
proxying, at a proxy device on a communication path
between the first user device and a presence server,
a data message sent from the first user device to
the presence server, including accepting the data
message sent to the presence server at the proxy
device and passing the accepted data message to
the presence server;
extracting, from the data message, information
indicative of an availability of the user at the proxy
device; and
routing user communication data to at least one of the
first user device and the second user device based
at least in part on the extracted information.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-8, 10-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baker (US 2008/0075066 Al; pub. Mar. 27, 2008)
2
Appeal2015-002105
Application 12/813,022
("Baker") in view of Wiatrak et al. (US 2007/0165653 Al; pub. July 19,
2007) ("Wiatrak"). (See Final Office Action (mailed Jan. 27, 2014) ("Final
Act.") 4--8.)
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baker in view of Wiatrak, and further in view of Kelley et
al. (US 2007 /0233798 Al; pub. Oct. 4, 2007) ("Kelley"). (See Final Act. 8-
9.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments.
Argument One
Wiatrak Does Not Teach Proxying
Claim 1 recites "proxying, at a proxy device ... a data message sent
from the first user device to the presence server, including accepting the data
message sent to the presence server at the proxy device and passing the
accepted data message to the presence server." Appellants contend that
"Wiatrak does not proxy 'a data message sent from the first user device to
the presence server."' (Reply 2.) Specifically, Appellants contend that
"Wiatrak only provides proxies for users ... But such messages are not 'sent
to the presence server' and 'accept[ed] .. [sic] at the proxy device' as
required by the claim." (Id. 2-3.) Therefore, according to Appellants,
"Waitrak [sic] does not provide a proxy for a proxy server, or teach any
other way in which the disclose proxy at the gateway would receive and
3
Appeal2015-002105
Application 12/813,022
process a data message sent to a presence server as required by the claim."
(Id. 2.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. We observe that
Wiatrak teaches that "the communication gateway 130 interacts with
elements of the wireless telephone network for the purpose of maintaining
presence information in the wireless telephone network." (Wiatrak i-f 39,
emphasis added.) We agree with the Examiner's findings that in Wiatrak,
the communication gateway ([ w ]hich includes a proxy and can
include a presence database, Item 130, Figure 2), interacts with
different elements, which include user devices (Item 154, Figure
2), as well as the presence database (Item 240, Figure 2) in order
to maintain presence information. Thus, once data[,] which
includes presence information[,] is sent from a user device, to the
communication gateway (item 130, Figure 2) ... , this
[i]nformation is passed and accepted from the devices via the
proxy and then passed through to the presence database.
(Ans. 8-9; Wiatrak, Fig. 2; i-fi-114, 39.) We are similarly not persuaded by
Appellants' contention that "[t]here is no proxy device on the path between
the user and presence database." (Reply 4; see, e.g., Wiatrak, Fig. 2.) Thus,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Argument Two
Baker Does Not Teach Extracting
Claim 1 recites "extracting, from the data message, information
indicative of an availability of the user at the proxy device." Appellants
contend that "Baker does not extract 'information indicative of an
availability of the user' from a proxied message." (Reply 4; see also App.
Br. 5.) Specifically, Appellants contend that "Baker at best describes
extracting an identifier associated with one or more telecommunication
4
Appeal2015-002105
Application 12/813,022
endpoints (e.g., an email address such as cjones@company.com) and using
the identifier to retrieve presence data from a presence server." (Id. 5---6.)
We understand the Examiner's rejection to be based on the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term "extracting, from the data message,
information indicative of an availability of the user at the proxy device."
(Ans. 9-10.) We agree with the Examiner's findings that because
Appellants never define the method of extraction of
presence data [and because e]xtraction of data is never
clearly defined within the claims, and is a broad term
within the industry[, any person with reasonable skill in
the art would reasonably conclude that extraction of
information from a data message, as merely obtaining
various pieces of information within the data message for
vanous uses.
(Id. 9.) Appellants do not propose a specific construction for this term, but
instead argue that the Examiner's construction is incorrect. (Reply 4--6.)
We are not persuaded that the Examiner's interpretation is either overbroad
or unreasonable. We also agree with the Examiner's findings that "Baker
teaches that the extraction of presence information from data messages
(reported availability information.)". (Ans. 9-10; Final Act. 2-3; Baker,
i-fi-140-43.) Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, because we are not persuaded by Appellants'
contentions with respect to claim 1, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1. The Appellants do not make any other separate,
substantive patentability arguments regarding claims 2-11, but instead rely
solely on their arguments with respect to claim 1. (Reply 6; App. Br. 9.)
5
Appeal2015-002105
Application 12/813,022
Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 2-11.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11 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
6