Ex Parte Drouet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2014

11136206 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FRANCOIS-XAVIER DROUET and
CAROLE TRUNTSCHKA
____________________

Appeal 2011-010760
Application 11/136,206
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010760
Application 11/136,206

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Francois-Xavier Drouet and Carole Truntschka (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5,
9, 13-17, 19, 23, and 27-29, which are the only claims pending in the
application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta (US
2002/0099777 A1, pub. Jul. 25, 2002) and Suzuki (US 6,826,596 B1, iss.
Nov. 30, 2004). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method of managing email messages comprising the steps
of:
on a computing device, sending at least one sent message
having a plurality of sent message control fields, wherein at
least one of the sent message control fields includes a message
identification field;
storing information in a control table, wherein the storing
comprises storing information from at least one of the plurality
of sent message control fields of the at least one sent message,
wherein the storing further comprises storing information
related to the message identification field of the sent message,
on a computing device, sending at least one response message
having a plurality of response message control fields, wherein
at least one of the response message control fields includes a
message identification field;
storing, in the control table, information related to the
response message from recipients of the at least one sent
message, the information related to the response message
including a deadline response date and/or time and a status
indicating whether a response has been received;
comparing information stored in the control table from at
least one of the plurality of sent message control fields with
Appeal 2011-010760
Application 11/136,206

3
information stored in the control table from at least one of the
plurality of response message control fields;
identifying matches between the information stored in the
control table from at least one of the plurality of sent message
control fields and information stored in the control table from at
least one of the plurality of response message control, wherein a
match indicates that the at least one response message relates to
the at least one sent message, wherein the sent message and the
response message each have a unique message identification,
and wherein the response message relates to the sent message
where the message identification of the response message
includes the message identification of the sent message in one
of the plurality of response message control fields;
after storing in the control table information related to the
response message, delivering the response message to at least
one recipient;
organizing the at least one response message identified in
the information comparing step according to at least one of the
plurality of response message control fields;
displaying the at least one sent message and the at least
one response message according to the step of organizing the at
least one response message, wherein displaying the at least one
sent message and the at least one response message utilizes a
hierarchical tree structure; and
monitoring the deadline response date and, where the
status indicates a response has not been received, automatically
sending a reminder message to recipients who have not
responded.

OPINION
Appellants argue that Gupta fails to disclose displaying the at least
one sent message and the at least one response message utilizing a
hierarchical tree structure, where “the sent message and the response
message each have a unique message identification,” as called for in claims
1, 14, and 15. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 4-8.
Appeal 2011-010760
Application 11/136,206

4
The Examiner pointed out where Gupta discloses these features. Ans.
3-4 (relying on Gupta, paras. [0038], [0103]; fig. 2, respondents portion
136).
Appellants contend that Gupta does not teach display of a hierarchical
tree and, further, even assuming respondents portion 136 of Gupta’s figure 2
did disclose a hierarchical tree, only one message (collaborative message
130) is displayed. App. Br. 10.
The Examiner’s position that the indented configuration described by
Gupta (para. [0038]) and depicted in Gupta’s figure 2 is disclosure of
displaying a hierarchical tree is sound. Indeed, the indented configuration,
shown particularly in respondents portion 136 of Gupta’s figure 2, is the
same type of hierarchical organization depicted in Appellants’ figure 5. See
Spec. 8, ll. 6-7 (describing figure 5 as “an example of a hierarchical
organization of messages”).
We also find that the collaborative message 130 depicted in Gupta’s
figure 2 does display both the sent message and the response message.
Specifically, the sent message is displayed in query portion 132 and
attachments portion 138 of collaborative message 130. See fig. 4, showing
the new (i.e., sent) collaborative email message being created (para. [0013]).
The response messages are displayed in Gupta’s respondents portion 136
and feedback portion 134. Like Appellants’ hierarchical display in figure 5
of the present application, Gupta’s respondents portion 136 includes the list
of recipients that have responded to the new collaborative message (i.e., the
sent message). Gupta, para. [0037]. A scroll bar is included to permit
recipients of collaborative message 130 to select, by highlighting one of the
respondents’ names from the menu in respondents portion 136, a response
Appeal 2011-010760
Application 11/136,206

5
message for display. Id. The selected response message is displayed in
feedback portion 134 of collaborative message 130.
Appellants urge that “characterization of Gupta’s message 130 as
more than one message with more than one ‘unique message identification’
is inaccurate.” Reply Br. 5. We do not agree with Appellants. As correctly
found by the Examiner (Ans. 3), Gupta clearly discloses “a set of message
identifiers associated with each message (whether an initial collaborative
email message or a reply to a collaborative email message).” Para. [0103].
Thus, each of the messages displayed in Gupta’s collaborative message 130
has its own unique message identification.
For the above reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Gupta and
Suzuki. We thus sustain the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 15 as unpatentable
over Gupta and Suzuki. We also sustain the like rejection of their dependent
claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 13, 16, 17, 19, 23, and 27-29, for which Appellants do not
present any separate arguments and which thus fall with the independent
claim from which they depend. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 9, 13-17, 19, 23, and
27-29 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Appeal 2011-010760
Application 11/136,206

6
hh