Ex Parte John et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 21, 201410999902 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte AJITA JOHN, REINHARD P. KLEMM, and DOREE D. SELIGMANN _____________ Appeal 2011-003023 Application 10/999,902 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 through 22. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for collecting proxy presence information about an object associated with a user from one or more proxy presence sources associated with the user. See Abstract of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: Appeal 2011-003023 Application 10/999,902 2 1. A method comprising: associating a presence agent with a presence source; transmitting presence information from the presence source to a presence agent, wherein the presence source is a process of a third party that provides an indication of presence of the user and wherein the presence source provides the presence agent with access to the presence information; and receiving the presence information from the presence agent. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph as failing to meet the written description requirement. Answer 5-6.1 The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph. Answer 6-7. The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hansche (US 2003/0041101 A1, Feb. 27, 2003), Bobde (US 2003/0217142 A1, Nov. 20, 2003), and Horvitz (US 7,233,933 B2, Jun. 19, 2007, filed Jun. 30, 2003). Answer 7-16. ISSUES Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 First Paragraph Appellants’ arguments on pages 13 through 15 of the Appeal Brief, directed to the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief dated June 28, 2010, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on September 2, 2010. Appeal 2011-003023 Application 10/999,902 3 present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in concluding that the originally filed specification does not demonstrate Appellants possessed the claimed method and apparatus which makes use of a presence source which is a process of a third party that provides an indication of the user? Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 Second Paragraph Appellants’ arguments on pages 15 through 17 of the Brief directed to the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph presents us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding limitations directed to the presence source being a process of a third party as being indefinite? We note that the Examiner also rejected independent claims 12 through 22 as the term “the memory” in independent claim 12, lacks antecedent basis. As Appellants did not contest this rejection, but rather proffered to amend the claim, we are not presented with an issue and sustain the rejection of claims 12 and claims 13 through 21, which depend thereupon pro forma. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appellants argue on pages 18 through 22 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is in error. These arguments present us with the following issues: a) With respect to independent claims 1, 12 and 22 did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hansche, Bobde, and Horvitz teaches transmitting presence information from the presence source to the presence agent? Appeal 2011-003023 Application 10/999,902 4 b) With respect to claims 5, and 15, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hansche, Bobde, and Horvitz teaches generating a continuous presence function which characterizes the likelihood that an object is active as claimed? c) With respect to claims 6, and 16, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hansche, Bobde, and Horvitz teaches recomputing a continuous presence function if a time since a last computation exceeds a threshold as claimed? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first and second paragraph. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph The Examiner’s rejection is centered around the term “third party” and that the Specification neither uses the term nor describes anything the skilled artisan would recognize as a third party. Answer 5-6. Appellants’ arguments cite several aspects of the disclosed invention asserting that they support the claim limitation. Brief 13-15. We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments, the portions of the Specification cited by Appellants and the Examiner’s response to each of Appellants’ arguments on pages 16 through 19 of the Answer. We concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph. Appeal 2011-003023 Application 10/999,902 5 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph The Examiner’s rejection is centered around the term “third party” being unclear as Appellants’ Specification provides no guidance to ascertain the scope of the term. Answer 6, 19. Appellants assert that the claimed “presence source is a process of a third party” is a process performed by an element. Brief 16. We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments, and concur with the Examiner that the term is indefinite as the Specification provides no guidance as to the scope of the claimed process of a third party. We concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 With respect to the rejection of claims 1 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. We concur with the Examiner’s findings and response to Appellants’ arguments. We add the following. With respect to claim 1, Appellants assert that the Examiner has equated Hansche’s presence agent with the claimed presence agent, Hansche’s presence proxy with Hansche’s third party and Hansche’s user agents as the claimed presences source. Brief 18. Appellants conclude that Hansche does not teach that the presence information is transmitted from the Appeal 2011-003023 Application 10/999,902 6 user agents to the presence agent, and thus the rejection is in error. Brief 19. We are not persuaded by this argument, the claim recites that the presence source is a process of a third party (which equates to Hansche’s presence proxy not the user agents). As is clear from Hansche’s Figure 1 and the accompanying description, the presence proxy transmits information to the presence agent. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 7 through 14, and 17 through 22 which are grouped with claim 1. With respect to claim 5, Appellants’ arguments center around the assertion that Hansche does not teach a continuous presence function as claimed. Brief 20-21. The Examiner has found this feature is taught by Hansche and Horvitz. Answer 21-22. Appellants have not identified any error in the Examiner’s finding with respect to Horvitz teaching this feature. As such, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Hansche and Horvitz teach the feature, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 15. With respect to claim 6, Appellants’ arguments similarly center around the assertion that Hansche does not teach recomputing a continuous presence function if a time since a last computation exceeds a threshold. Similar to our discussion above with respect to claim 5, the Examiner has found that this feature is taught by Hansche and Horvitz. Answer 22-23. Appellants have not identified any error in the Examiner’s finding with respect to Horvitz teaching this feature. As such, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Hansche and Horvitz teach the feature and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 16. Appeal 2011-003023 Application 10/999,902 7 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 22 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 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation