11018893 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 9, 2012)

Ex Parte Cai et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 9, 2012

11018893 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 9, 2012)

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. 11/018,893 12/21/2004 Yigang Cai 37-3-4 9498 7590 04/10/2012 Werner Ulrich 501 Forest Avenue Unit 406 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 EXAMINER GOODCHILD, WILLIAM J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2433 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/10/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte YIGANG CAI, SHEHRYAR S. QUTUB, and ALOK SHARMA Appeal 2010-001417 Application 11/018,893 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-22. Claims 8 and 13 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2010-001417 Application 11/018,893 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for blocking unwanted messages in a telecommunications network. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method of blocking unwanted messages (spam) in a telecommunication network for serving short message service (SMS) messages comprising the steps of: receiving a SMS request to transmit a SMS message from a source to a destination; transmitting an identification of said source and said destination of that request to a centralized anti-spam server; in said centralized anti-spam server, determining whether the SMS message request can be honored by transmitting the message from the source to the destination or whether the message transmission should be blocked. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Chadwick US 2004/0210604 A1 Oct. 21, 2004 Alspector US 2004/0148330 A1 Jul. 29, 2004 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Chadwick and Alspector. Ans. 3-6.1 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 1, 2009 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 5, 2009. Appeal 2010-001417 Application 11/018,893 3 ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-22 by finding that Chadwick and Alspector show or suggest a method for blocking unwanted messages in a telecommunication network utilizing a centralized anti-spam filter? FINDING OF FACT We find that the following finding of fact (FF) is supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). 1. Chadwick discloses a mail server which includes a spam filter having a “white list” and a “black list” for use in analyzing inbound email on behalf of multiple clients to determine whether or not to forward an email message to an addressed client. Chadwick, Abstract. ANALYSIS Only those arguments actually made by the Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which the Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) (2010). Appellants provide an identical argument with respect to independent claims 1 and 12 (App. Br. 7-9). Further, Appellants provide a similar argument with respect to dependent claims 2-7, 9-11 and 14-22 (App. Br. 9- 14). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as being representative of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2010-001417 Application 11/018,893 4 Appellants argue, with respect to claims 1 and 12, that the cited references relied upon by the Examiner fail to show or suggest a “centralized anti-spam server,” a key aspect of Appellants’ claimed invention. The Examiner finds that an e-mail server, such as that disclosed in Chadwick, receives and filters email transmitted to clients of the e-mail server from a plurality of networks, receiving e-mail from “anywhere in the world” and thereafter distributes that email to all users of that server, from a central location. Ans. 7. We find that Chadwick discloses an e-mail server having a spam filter, which receives email addressed to clients of the e-mail server and analyzes that e-mail before distributing it to addressed clients. FF1. We concur with the Examiner’s finding that the e-mail server of Chadwick is centrally located, at least with respect to clients of that e-mail server. Further, we find that Appellants have not applied any unusual definition to the term “centralized” within their Specification and consequently we find that the term “centralized,” as utilized by Appellants, is merely descriptive and not functional in nature. We are, therefore, not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1 and claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14-22, which were not separately argued with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-22 under §103. Appeal 2010-001417 Application 11/018,893 5 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-22 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED peb