Ex Parte Galvin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 19, 201310738246 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/738,246 12/17/2003 James Patrick Galvin JR. LOT920030031US1 (016) 8211 46321 7590 06/20/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER MADAMBA, GLENFORD J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES PATRICK GALVIN, JR. SANDRA L. KOGAN, DUNCAN L. MEWHERTER, RONALD E. PONTRICH, JR., KEVIN SOLIE, and AMY D. TRAVIS ____________ Appeal 2011-000377 Application 10/738,246 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000377 Application 10/738,246 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claim 16, which is the only claim pending in this application as claims 1-15 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to a method for providing a user the ability to publish a variable online status to groups of other users (see Spec. ¶¶ [0006] – [0007]). Independent claim 16 reads as follows: 16. A method for scoping awareness to a collaborative task, the method comprising: establishing different collaborative contexts in a collaborative computing system, each of the collaborative contexts comprising a subset of users in the collaborative computing system and an arrangement of tasks to be performed amongst the subset of users; setting different availability messages for each of the different collaborative contexts; and, publishing an online status for a user amongst the users to others of the users, the online status varying for each of the other users depending upon a membership of each other of the users in a particular one of the collaborative contexts. Rejection Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berger (US 7,117,445 B2), Luzzatti (US 6,714,519 B2), and Digate (US 7,184,524 B2). Appeal 2011-000377 Application 10/738,246 3 Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants do not dispute the teachings of Berger and Luzzatti and focus their contentions on the cited portions in columns 2 and 3 of Digate and assert that Digate does not disclose: A “collaborative context” as comprising 1) “a subset of users in the collaborative computing system” and 2) “an arrangement of tasks to be performed amongst the subset of users.” (Br. 4-5). Appellants point to columns 2 and 3 of Digate and argue that: [t]he passage of Digate above discloses a system that “enables users to control their availability to other users” (see underlined section above [col. 2, l. 61]). The above citation also discloses the usage of online presence indicators to convene a meeting or schedule a conference. The passage of Digate above, however, does not disclose the ability of a user to control his online availability according to the membership of another user in a group, as well as the tasks performed by the other user, as claimed by Appellants in claim 16. (Br. 5). 2. Appellants further point to the cited portions in columns 5 and 6 of Digate and assert that the cited passages indicate the ability to allow a group of users to see a first user’s availability at a certain time or by other users only for meetings (Br. 5-7). Appellants specifically assert that: The passage of Digate above discloses a system that allows a group of users to be defined so as define the users desired to participate in a meeting (see first underlined section above [col. 7, 11. 13-15]). The above citation also discloses the ability to allow a “function or role” to be assigned to each user in the defined group (see second underlined section above [col. 7, ll. 21-25]). The “function or role” assigned to each user, however, is simply an attribute and is not associated with each user’s ability to see the online availability of another use. (Br. 8). Appeal 2011-000377 Application 10/738,246 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. In response to each of the arguments raised by Appellants, the Examiner presents detailed findings and responses (Ans. 8-15), which are not rebutted by Appellants in a Reply Brief. We agree with these findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own. With respect to Appellants’ first contention, we specifically agree with the Examiner’s construction with respect to the claim terms “collaborative context” and an “arrangement of tasks” based on Appellants’ disclosure in paragraphs 17 and 181 and Appellants’ description of these terms on pages 3-4 of the Brief (Ans. 9-10). We further agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions that Digate’s disclosure of real-time activities or actions include other activities and sessions among users, such as chat sessions, shared whiteboard, etc. (Ans. 11-12 (citing Digate, col. 2, l. 34 – col. 3, l. 15)). The Examiner specifically points to the teachings in column 7 of Digate and highlights the relevant teachings to meet the claimed “collaborative context” as comprising “a subset of users in the collaborative computing system” (Ans. 12-13 (citing Digate, col. 7, ll. 29-42). Additionally, as found by the Examiner, the activities associated with the unit 106 in Figure 7, provide actions to be performed by the users and meet the claimed “arrangement of tasks to be performed amongst the subset of users” (see Ans. 13 (citing Digate, Figure 7 and corresponding text)). 1 The Examiner inadvertently refers to paragraphs 19 and 20 of Appellants’ Specification. Appeal 2011-000377 Application 10/738,246 5 Regarding Appellants’ second contention, we also agree with the Examiner’s findings.2 Specifically, as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 13-14), Digate discusses a user’s online status or presence with respect to situations when the user is logged in or logged off, which indicate the user’s availability status to other users (id.). Additionally, the Examiner properly points to Digate’s disclosure regarding varying the user’s status depending on the user membership or attribute as the claimed online status depending on a membership of another user in the group in a particular collaborative context (Ans. 14). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 16 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 ELD 2 The Examiner explains that, alternatively, Luzzatti discloses the disputed claim feature as the selective revealing of the subscriber availability (Ans. 15), which we do not address as we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the teachings of Digate. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation