Ex Parte Daniels et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201411186358 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte FONDA J. DANIELS and RUTHIE D. LYLE1 ________________ Appeal 2012-004648 Application 11/186,358 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIUM DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non- final rejection of claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Invention Appellants’ claimed invention is “a data processing system for audio- visual presentation of prioritized messages in a collaborative environment [that] can include a human-to-human collaborative system client, a data store 1 International Business Machines Corporation is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-004648 Application 11/186,358 2 of prioritized messages, and a table correlating display characteristics of user interface elements with message priorities for messages referenced by the data store.” Abstract. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. A data processing system for audio-visual presentation of prioritized messages in a collaborative environment, comprising: a real-time human-to-human collaborative system client executing in memory by at least one processor of the data processing system; a data store of prioritized real-time messages; a table correlating display characteristics of user interface elements with message priorities for real-time messages referenced by said data store; and, prioritization and visualization logic coupled to said real- time human-to-human collaborative system client, said data store of prioritized messages and said table, said prioritization and visualization logic comprising program code enabled to render each of said user interface elements with corresponding display characteristics consonant with priorities assigned to individual real-time messages displayed in each of said user interface elements. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell, III (US 2003/0131064 A1; July 10, 2003), Horvitz (US 2007/0005754 A1; Jan. 4, 2007), and Roberts (US 7,254,226 B1; Aug. 7, 2007). Ans. 4–7. Appeal 2012-004648 Application 11/186,358 3 The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell, III, Horvitz, Roberts, and Ostermann (US 6,976,082 B1; Dec. 13, 2005). Ans. 7–8. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Horvitz and Roberts teaches or suggests “a table correlating display characteristics of user interface elements with message priorities for real-time messages referenced by said data store,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the record in light of Appellants’ contentions. See App. Br. 6–11; Reply Br. 1–5. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the non-final rejection from which this appeal was taken. See Ans. 5–6, 8–9; Non-Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner’s findings accord with the teachings and suggestions of Horvitz and Roberts. See, e.g., Horvitz ¶ 54; Roberts col. 7, Tab. 2. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but we do not find them persuasive of error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1–15. Appeal 2012-004648 Application 11/186,358 4 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–15. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation