Ex Parte Horii

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12641913 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/641,913 12/18/2009
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
07/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hiroshi HORII
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.
P3725USOO 1540
EXAMINER
STITT, ERIK V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROSHI HORII
Appeal2014-009873
Application 12/641,913 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN F. HORVATH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21-
23.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant indicates the Real Party in Interest is Nokia Corporation. App.
Br. 2.
2 Claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16, 19, and 20 were cancelled. App. Br. 19-23.
Appeal2014-009873
Application 12/641,913
Invention
The invention is related to presenting a communication history.
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
collecting context information on one or more communication
sessions between a first party and a second party from a plurality of
applications, services, devices, or a combination thereof;
aggregating the context information into a communication
history;
identifying a plurality of communication parameters in the
context information, wherein the communication parameters relate to
peiforming the communication sessions;
determining a frequency or a success rate of each of the
identified communication parameters in the communication history;
providing one or more recommended communication
parameters for establishing a new communication session based, at
least in part, on the frequency or the success rate determined for each
of the identified communication parameters;
receiving a request to present the communication history; and
causing, at least in part, presentation of the communication
history together with a recommendation window containing the
recommended communication parameters.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Ohtsuki et al.
Patel et al.
Ickman et al.
US 2004/0113915 Al
US 2010/0082801 Al
US 2011/0021250 Al
2
June 1 7, 2004
Apr. 01, 2010
June 27, 2011
Appeal2014-009873
Application 12/641,913
0' Shaughnessy et al. US 8,223,940 B2 July 17, 2012
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21-23 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel, O'Shaughnessy,
and Ickman.
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Patel, O'Shaughnessy, Ickman, and Ohtsuki.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant's arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 1, 9, and 18
Appellant contends the Examiner erred rejecting independent claims 1,
9, and 18 because the combination of Patel, O'Shaughnessy, and Ickman
fails to teach or suggest "identifying a plurality of communication
parameters in the context information, wherein the communication
parameters relate to performing the communication sessions," and "causing,
at least in part, presentation of the communication history together with a
recommendation window containing the recommended communication
3
Appeal2014-009873
Application 12/641,913
parameters," as recited in claim l and similarly recited in claims 9 and 18.
App. Br. 7-16; Reply Br. 2---6.
Appellant first argues Patel only observes "the success of a given mode
of communication" and thus does not teach observing a plurality of
communication parameters. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2, 3 (citing Patel i-f 25).
We disagree.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the cited references teach or
suggest the disputed feature. Non-Final Act. 6. In its entirety, Patel
paragraph 25 states:
Additionally, the network may observe the success of a given
mode of communication previously suggested (feedback at 222)
with respect to the context (i.e., the targeted end user, the location
of the targeted end user, the time of day, the current activity of
the targeted end user, identity of initiating end user, etc.) of the
previous recommendation. Since these observations may be
useful in predicting future responses of the targeted end users,
the network may record the observations in a Network
Communication Observation Database 152 and utilize the
observations when making future recommendations on modes of
communication 220.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this paragraph
teaches or suggests to observe particular modes of communication, not just a
single mode as Appellant argues, for use in predicting future responses of
end users and for making future recommendations on a plurality of modes of
communication. Accordingly, we find Appellant's argument unpersuasive
of Examiner error.
Appellant next argues 0' Shaughnessy' s communication modes are, at
best, the means by which communication sessions are generated and that
these modes are substantially different from a "plurality of communication
4
Appeal2014-009873
Application 12/641,913
parameters in the context information." App. Br. 8, 9; Reply Br. 3, 4. We
disagree.
Appellant concedes that the recited "communication parameters" may
include a communication "type" as recited in claim 3. Reply Br. 4.
Appellant's Specification also equates a "method of communication" with a
"communication parameter" ("By analyzing the history, the system 100 can
then recommend[] a method of communication (i.e. communication
parameters ... ") Spec. i-f 23. The Specification also indicates that a phone
call is a communication "type," which is an example of a "communication
parameter" that can be recommended ("the system 100 can recommend to
the user the communication parameters (e.g., communication type = phone
call")). Id. According to the Specification then, the recited "communication
parameter" is a "method of communication," examples of which include
communication types such as a phone call. A phone call is one of the many
communication modes taught by O'Shaughnessy. See O'Shaughnessy, col.
5, 11. 3-11. Accordingly, we find Appellant's argument unpersuasive of
Examiner error.
Finally, Appellant argues that the combined references fail to teach or
suggest the recited "causing, at least in part, presentation of the
communication history together with a recommendation window containing
the recommended communication parameters," and that the Examiner used
impermissible hindsight to reconstruct the disputed elements because there is
no suggestion in the record which would motivate a person of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the references in the manner proposed by the
Examiner. App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 5, 6. We disagree.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, it would have been obvious to one
5
Appeal2014-009873
Application 12/641,913
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Patel with
O'Shaughnessy so that the best recommendations per mode can be presented
so the user knows the best way to contact another user. Non-Final Act. 6.
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Patel with
Ickman so that a user can see a history of the communication records. Non-
Final Act. 7. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, it would be reasonable
to combine Ickman's communication history window with O'Shaughnessy's
recommendation window because O'Shaughnessy shows how the
recommendation window is displayed with an email history window. Ans.
5. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has articulated appropriate reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See, KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
We are not persuaded the combination of Patel, 0' Shaughnessy, and
Ickman fails to teach or suggest "identifying a plurality of communication
parameters in the context information, wherein the communication
parameters relate to performing the communication sessions," and "causing,
at least in part, presentation of the communication history together with a
recommendation window containing the recommended communication
parameters," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 9 and 18.3 Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these
3 Although we affirm the Examiner for the reasons stated by the Examiner,
we note the Examiner also identified Figure 4 B of Patel, and paragraph 18
describing that figure. See Non-Final Act. 7. Figure 4B of Patent shows
that when a user makes a recommendation request 402, the network sends
the user a recommendation 140 indicating how the user can best contact a
target using a particular communication mode such as email, IM, or a phone
call to a particular location. See Patel i-f 18, Fig. 4 B. That recommendation
6
Appeal2014-009873
Application 12/641,913
claims.
Remaining Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 21-23
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive arguments with
respect to the remaining claims. As such, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive
arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11,
12, 14, 15, 17, and 21-23. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12,
14, 15, 17, 18, and21-23.
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).
AFFIRMED
is based on information determined by contact liaison 150, including context
information such as the location of the target, the time of day, and the
success rate of contacting the target using a particular mode of
communication. Id. i-fi-f 18, 23-25. Thus, Patel discloses identifying a
plurality of communication parameters (email, IM, phone call) and
presenting a recommendation window containing recommended
communication parameters.
7