Ex Parte Daniels et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2016

11085647 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111085,647 03/21/2005
46321 7590 11/16/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fonda J. Daniels
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.
LOT920050009US1 (090) 3194
EXAMINER
WOOLCOCK, MADHU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FONDA J. DANIELS, RUTHIE D. LYLE, and
MARY ELLEN ZURKO
Appeal2015-003960
Application 11/085,647
Technology Center 2400
Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
JEREMY J. CURCURI, and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants have filed a paper under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(l)
requesting that we reconsider our Decision of September 2, 2016, wherein
we affirmed the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-12. We have
reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellants' comments in the request,
and have found no errors. We, therefore, decline to change the Decision.
Appellants' request is denied.
Appeal2015-003960
Application 11/085,647
DISCUSSION
Appellants present the following principal argument:
With respect, the findings of the Board in this instance
overlook the basic argument enunciated by Appellants: the
logging of data [in the prior art] is not the claimed logging in a
log of the remedial measures. Indeed, paragraph [0019] of the
originally presented specification make[s] clear the nature of the
"remedial measures":
[0019] ... the policy processor 170 can undertake
remedial measures which can include warning the
user before forwarding the message, and quashing
the operation, to name only a few. Also, a log of the
remedial measure or measures can be maintained
for the benefit of the user.
As will be apparent, the remedial measures set forth in
Appellants' specification are measures taken with respect to the
blocking of a message whereas as expressed by the Board, there
is no logging of any remedial measures -just the data of the
message that has been blocked.
Reh'g Req. 5.
The Board did not misapprehend or overlook Appellants' arguments;
rather, the Board agreed with the Examiner's finding that Claudatos teaches
the recited (claim 1) "logging in a log the remedial measures undertaken
when the remedial measure is the blocking of the forwarding of the
message." Dec. 4 (citing Claudatos col. 10, 11. 46-48, 50-52).
Claudatos (col. 10, 11. 46-48) discloses: "If it is determined that the
message is to be blocked, the message is blocked (1210), i.e., it is not
forwarded on to the intended recipient." Claudatos (col. 10, 11. 50-52)
discloses: "[T]he blocking process includes logging data associated with the
blocked data message."
2
Appeal2015-003960
Application 11/085,647
Appellants' arguments are not convincing of any error in our original
Decision:
Claudatos's blocking a message and logging associated data (see
Claudatos col. 10, 11. 46-48, 50-52) discloses the specifically
recited (claim 1) "logging in a log the remedial measures
undertaken when the remedial measure is the blocking of the
forwarding of the message." Put another way, logging data
associated with the blocked message teaches logging remedial
measures undertaken when the remedial measure is blocking, as
recited. See Ans. 4 ("Given that the logging of message data in
Claudatos is part of the blocking process and occurs based on the
message being blocked, it is apparent that this logging is
synonymous to logging of the occurrence of the blocking.").
Dec. 5 (citing Claudatos col. 10, 11. 46-48, 50-52). We maintain that this
position in the original Decision is correct and is supported by the record.
CONCLUSION
Based on the record before us now and in the original appeal, we have
granted Appellants' request to the extent that we have reconsidered our
Decision, but we deny Appellants' request to make any changes in our
Decision. It is our view that Appellants have not identified any points the
Board has misapprehended or overlooked.
The request for rehearing is denied.
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).
REHEARING DENIED
3