Ex Parte Hettish et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 2013

10673390 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK BERNARD HETTISH and JEFF BLOHM
____________

Appeal 2010-011814
Application 10/673,390
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-7, 9-17, 20, and 21. Claims 8, 18, and 19 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention generally relates to presence technology in
which the availability of a user is mapped to the availability of one or more
Appeal 2010-011814
Application 10/673,390

2
of that user’s devices, and vice-versa. See generally Abstract, Spec. 1:10-
2:10. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method, comprising:
interfacing an identity oriented context application that
represents a context of an identity based on an availability of the
identity with a device oriented context application that determines an
availability or state of a device associated with the identity, where the
identity is a person or a group of persons;
receiving a request to make a change to a new identity oriented
context for an identity, wherein said new identity oriented context is
associated with said identity and provides an availability status of said
identity;
mapping said new identity oriented context from said identity
oriented application to a device oriented context from said device
oriented application for a specific device associated with said identity,
wherein said device oriented context provides an availability or work
status of the specific device; and
providing data indicative of said mapped device oriented
context to the device context oriented application.

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Diacakis (US 2002/0116336 A1; published Aug. 22, 2002).
Ans. 4-8.1

RELATED APPEALS
Although Appellants do not identify any appeals as related (App. Br.
2, 17), the Examiner nevertheless identifies appeal number 2010-011815

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed Mar. 25,
2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed Apr. 28, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 28, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-011814
Application 10/673,390

3
corresponding to application number10/673,522, and appeal number 2010-
011817 corresponding to application 10/673,846, as related. Ans. 2.

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Diacakis discloses every recited element of
representative claim 1. Ans. 4-5.
Appellants argue that Diacakis’s presence and availability
management server determines the presence and availability of an
individual, not of a device. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4-6.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Diacakis discloses “a device oriented context application that
determines an availability or state of a device associated with the identity”?

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ argument that Diacakis does not teach “a device oriented
context application that determines an availability or state of a device” is
unpersuasive. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4-6. Appellants emphasize the
meaning given to the term “availability” by Diacakis. App. Br. 7-8; Reply
Br. 4-6. However, the definition of a claim term in Diacakis does not
preclude a broader reasonable interpretation of that term in the light of
Appellants’ Specification. Here, the Specification does not provide a
specific definition for “availability or state of a device,” but it does provide
examples including states like “ ‘available,’ ‘non-available,’ ‘busy,’ ‘away,’
‘unknown,’ ‘partially available,’ (e.g., device may be ‘busy’ on a voice
Appeal 2010-011814
Application 10/673,390

4
channel but available on an instant messaging channel), ‘be right back,’
‘present,’ [sic] not present,’ etc.” See Spec. 5:15-6:1. Notably, in the
Specification, “availability” may refer to whether a device is on or off.
Spec. 5:29-6:1 (“[A] wireless and instant messaging capable PDA [Personal
Digital Assistant] may be considered as having a device context as
‘available’ by a presence and availability service when the PDA is online
and a device context of ‘unavailable’ by the presence and availability service
when the PDA is offline.”). As the Examiner correctly points out, Diacakis’
Presence Detection Engine 18 determines whether devices are on or off.
Ans. 4, 9-11. Specifically, Diacakis discloses that a person’s presence
depends upon whether their device is switched on or switched off:
For example, if a person is near a landline telephone or wireless
telephone that is switched on, that person is ‘present’ on a telephone
network, i.e., the person is able to use the telephone network to
communicate with other people also on the network. Conversely, if a
person is not near a landline telephone or wireless telephone, or the
wireless telephone is switched off, then that person is not present on a
telephone network, and thus unable to communicate with others on
the telephone network.
Diacakis, ¶ [0026] (emphasis added). In addition to landline and wireless
telephones, Diacakis’s Figure 4 depicts a variety of devices (44, 46, 48, 50,
and 52) whose “availability” the Presence Detection Engine determines.
Ans. 4, 9 (citing Diacakis Fig. 4). Since Diacakis’ Presence Detection
Engine determines whether devices are on or off, we agree with the
Examiner that it determines an “availability . . . of a device,” under the
term’s broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. Claim
1.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) independent
claim 1; (2) independent claims 20 and 21 which recite commensurate
Appeal 2010-011814
Application 10/673,390

5
limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2-7 and 9-17 not separately argued
with particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-17, 20, and 21
under § 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-17, 20, and 21 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

llw