Ex Parte Kerr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2016

11612037 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111612,037 12/18/2006 JIMM. KERR
86421 7590 06/27/2016
Patent Capital Group - Cisco
2816 Lago Vista Lane
Rockwall, TX 75032
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.
950418 5491
EXAMINER
WILCOX, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 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):
patbradford@patcapgroup.com
peggsu@cisco.com
P AIR_86421@patcapgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIM M. KERR, ALAND. GATZKE, and CARY A. BRAN1
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-19, 21, 23, and 28-32. Claims 20, 22, and 24--27 have been
canceled. Br. 1-2. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Cisco Technology, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to dynamic location-specific
distribution lists. Spec. Title. According to the Specification, a "dynamic
distribution list that is location-based may be updated substantially each time
an entity either enters a location or exits a location." Spec. 3.
Claims 1 and 16 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and
are reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a first interface arrangement, the first interface arrangement
being arranged to obtain information from at least one data source, the
information being associated with the presence of an entity at a
location;
a processing arrangement, the processing arrangement
including a processor, the processing arrangement being arranged to
automatically update a distribution list based on the information, the
distribution list being associated with the location, wherein the
distribution list includes a plurality of e-mail addresses including an
e-mail address associated with the entity; and
a memory, the memory arranged to store the distribution list.
16. An apparatus comprising:
a first arrangement, the first arrangement being arranged to
automatically determine if a change in a status of a first entity with
respect to a location has occurred, wherein the location is associated
with a meeting to which a plurality of entities has been invited,
wherein the first entity is one of the plurality of entities;
a second arrangement, the second arrangement being arranged
to update a first distribution list to reflect the change in the status of
the first entity with respect to the location, wherein the first
distribution list is associated with the location, the second
arrangement further being arranged to maintain a second distribution
list, the second distribution list being arranged to identify at least one
2
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
entity of the plurality of entities that is absent from the location but
has been invited to the meeting; and
a third arrangement, the third arrangement being arranged to
store the first distribution list, wherein the third arrangement includes
a memory.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1--4, 6, 8-10, 12-15, 19, 21, and23-32 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Olenick et al. (US
7, 172, 113 B2; Feb. 6, 2007) ("Olenick") and Serdy et al. (US 5,990,886;
Nov. 23, 1999) ("Serdy"). Final Act. 2-31.
2. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olenick, Serdy, and Armstrong et al. (US 8,064,487 B 1;
Nov. 22, 2011) ("Armstrong"). Final Act. 31-32.
3. Claims 7 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Olenick, Serdy, and De Yaney (US 5,548,816;
Aug. 20, 1996). Final Act. 32-34.
4. Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olenick and Horvitz et al. (US 7,644,144 Bl; Jan. 5,
2010) ("Horvitz"). Final Act. 34--44.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Olenick and
Serdy teaches or suggests "automatically updat[ing] a distribution list based
on the information, the distribution list being associated with the location,
wherein the distribution list includes a plurality of e-mail addresses
including an e-mail address associated with the entity," as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Olenick and
Serdy teaches or suggests excluding a reference on a distribution list to an
entity no longer detected at a location, as required by claim 4, and similarly
recited in claim 14?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Olenick and
Serdy teaches or suggests a first interface arrangement "arranged to obtain
the information from the at least one data source in response to the request
for the distribution list," as recited in claim 30?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Olenick and
Serdy teaches or suggests automatically updating an existing distribution
list, as required by claim 32?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Olenick and
Serdy teaches or suggests "automatically adding an indicator associated with
the first entity to the distribution list after obtaining the distribution list if it
is determined that the first entity is associated with the location," as recited
in claim 8, and similarly recited in claim 19?
6. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Olenick and
Serdy teaches or suggests "determining if access to the distribution list is
requested," as recited in claim 12?
7. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Olenick and
Horvitz teaches or suggests a second distribution list of entities that were
invited to a meeting at a location but are absent from the location, as
required by claim 16?
8. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Olenick and
Horvitz teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 18?
4
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
Claims 1-19, 21, 23, and 28-32
ANALYSIS2
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Serdy teaches or
suggests "automatically updat[ing] a distribution list," as recited in claim 1.
Br. 11-14. In particular, Appellants assert Serdy is limited to automatically
creating a distribution list, but does not automatically update a distribution
list. Br. 13. Further, Appellants assert Serdy requires the manual selection
of entities to create the distribution list. Br. 13.
Contrary to Appellants' assertions, Serdy is directed to automatically
creating distribution lists, "without requiring a user to manually enter the
names and e-mail addresses of individual recipients." Serdy, col. 1, 11. 27-
29. Rather, a visual location is used wherein the user constructs a rectangle
or other shape over a map and all potential e-mail recipients within the area
defined by the shape populate a distribution list. Serdy, col. 1, 11. 44--55.
Thus, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Serdy teaches automatically
populating a distribution list after the user selects a geographic region on a
map. Final Act. 3 (citing Serdy col. 1, 11. 27--49); Ans. 3 ("Each time the
user creates a rectangle/shape across the map the distribution list is updated
with new e-mail recipients (which corresponds to 'automatically updating a
distribution list').").
Further, we disagree with Appellants' arguments that under a broad
but reasonable interpretation the "automatic[] update [of] a distribution list"
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
November 12, 2013 ("Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on February 14,
2014 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed on May 9,
2013, from which this Appeal is taken.
5
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
excludes the creation of a distribution list, particularly subsequent creations
(i.e., updates) of the same distribution list. 3
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and the
rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 28, and 29, which depend from claim 1 and
were not argued separately. See, e.g., Br. 14.
Dependent claim 4 recites the limitation "the processing arrangement
is arranged to update the distribution list to exclude a reference to [an]
entity," wherein the entity had previously been associated with a location but
is no longer detected at the location. In other words, an entity had been
detected at a location and included on a distribution list. However, the entity
is no longer detected at the location and is excluded (i.e., removed) from the
distribution list.
Appellants contend Olenick fails to teach or suggest the exclusion of
entities (persons) no longer at a location and instead includes such entities
on its list. Br. 15-17 (citing Olenick, Fig. 11).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Figure 11 of Olenick is
illustrative and is reproduced below:
3 Although not relied upon in our affirmance, we also note claim 32, which
depends from claim 1, narrows the distribution list to "an existing
distribution list," thereby further supporting our understanding that updating
a distribution list includes creating a distribution list. See 35 U.S.C. § 112,
fourth paragraph.
6
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
f!G. ·11
Figure 11 of Olenick shows a log of Checked-In Visitors and Checked-Out
Visitors. Olenick, col. 5, 11. 22-23. As shown in Figure 11, there are two
lists: Checked-In Visitors and Checked-Out Visitors. Olenick, col. 29,
11. 62--63. The Examiner finds, and we agree, the log of Olenick provides an
administrator real time information about changes to the location of the
visitors (i.e., whether they are still detected). Ans. 5. Thus, if a visitor has
checked-out (i.e., no longer detected at the location), that visitor is excluded
from the Checked-In Visitor list and added to the Checked-Out Visitor list.
See Ans. 5--6.
Thus, we find the combination of Olenick and Serdy teaches or
reasonably suggests the disputed limitation of claim 4. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
7
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
Claim 30 depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein the first
interface arrangement is arranged to obtain the information from the at least
one data source in response to the request for the distribution list."
Appellants concede Olenick, as relied upon by the Examiner,
"discloses that a scanning module may scan an identification card at one or
more entry points in a location" and that "a client may request information
from a server, and that a server may communicate with other servers to
request information." Br. 17-18 (citing Olenick, col. 6, 11. 55----67, col. 20,
11. 52-53). However, Appellants assert Olenick does not teach "that
information associated with the presence of an entity is obtained from a
scanning module at a location in response to a request for a distribution list."
Br. 18.
We disagree. As the Examiner explains, Olenick teaches a dynamic
log file maintained in a database for tracking users at various locations and
that an administrator may request this log (i.e., distribution list) of checked-
in-visitors. Ans. 7 (citing Olenick, col. 6, 11. 32-35, col. 7, 11. 43----62, col. 16,
11. 52----63, col. 21, 1. 39---col. 22, 1. 10, and Figs. 2 and 11 ). Further, the
Examiner finds Serdy teaches querying a database to find all potential e-mail
recipients within an area defined by the user. Ans. 9 (citing Serdy, col. 1,
11. 25----62). The Examiner finds, and we agree, "[t]hese actions are
performed in response to a request for the distribution list." Ans. 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 30.
Additionally, Appellants assert "[t]here is no reasonable suggestion in
Olenick and Serdy that an existing distribution list is automatically updated
based on information [obtained from the at least one data source]" as
required by dependent claim 32. Br. 19.
8
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
As discussed supra, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Olenick
teaches the log file is dynamic and is, therefore, updated as visitors check in
or check out. Ans. 9-10 (citing Olenick, col. 6, 11. 32-35, col. 7, 11. 43---62,
col. 16, 11. 52---63, col. 21, 1. 39---col. 22, 1. 10, and Figs. 2 and 11 ). Thus, as a
visitor checks out, the Checked-In Visitor list (i.e., an existing distribution
list) is updated to exclude the departing visitor (similarly, the list may be
updated as a new visitor checks in). See Olenick, Fig. 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 32.
Claims 8-15, 21, and 31
Independent claim 8 recites, in part, "automatically adding an
indicator associated with the first entity to the distribution list after obtaining
the distribution list if it is determined that the first entity is associated with
the location." Appellants argue:
Serdy appears to disclose not having to manually enter names
and e-mail addresses to create a distribution list, but discloses
that a user selects entities to form an e-mail distribution list. A
user selecting entities to form an e-mail distribution list does not
reasonably suggest automatically adding an indicator associated
with a first entity to a distribution list after obtaining the
distribution list.
Br. 22.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. As discussed supra, the
Examiner finds Serdy teaches:
The user constructs a rectangle or other shape over the map to
encompass all desired recipients. The e-mail program queries
the database to find all the potential e-mail recipients within the
area defined by the rectangle. A distribution list is formed from
these e-mail recipients (where each recipient would have an
indicator showing an e-mail address). Each time the user creates
9
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
a rectangle/ shape across the map the distribution list is updated
with new e-mail recipients. A user can then limit the distribution
list by specifying a logic query to provide visual feedback to the
user so that the user can examine and modify the distribution list
after it has been formulated in this manner.
Ans. 12 (citing Serdy, Summary of the Invention, col. 1, 11. 25---63, col. 6,
11. 30---64, Figs. 2-9). Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Olenick
teaches or suggests automatically updating a distribution list to add an entity
as a new visitor enters a location. Ans. 13; see Olenick, Fig. 11.
Appellants also argue Serdy is directed to creating a distribution list
and allowing a user to select entities to create a distribution list. Br. 22-23.
Appellants contend this does not teach or suggest "obtaining a distribution
list," as recited in claim 8. Br. 23.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Olenick teaches an administrator
can request the log of user activity (i.e., obtaining a distribution list) bye-
mail. Ans. 11; see Olenick, col. 21, 11. 63---67. The Examiner further finds,
and we agree, Serdy teaches a user may "Add" additional recipients to an
already-obtained distribution list. Ans. 12-13 (citing Serdy, col. 1, 11. 56-
64).
Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 and the
rejections of claims 9-11, 13, 15, 21, and 31, which depend therefrom and
were not argued separately.
Claim 12 depends from claim 8 and further recites "determining if
access to the distribution list is requested." Appellants contend the prior art
fails to teach or suggest determining if access to a distribution list is
requested. Br. 24--25.
10
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because, as the Examiner
explains, Serdy teaches allowing a user to "Add" recipients to a distribution
list and, therefore, provides access to the distribution list. Ans. 14--15 (citing
Serdy, col. 1, 11. 56---64). Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Olenick teaches an administrator is able to request access to the visitor log
(i.e., distribution list). Ans. 14; see also Olenick, col. 21, 11. 63----67 ("The log
maintaining/monitoring module 248 may enable the system administrator to
request that the log file be ... emailed to a remote email reading device.").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
Regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 14---in particular, the
Examiner's finding of "automatically excluding the indicator associated with
the first entity from the distribution list if it is determined that the first entity
is disassociated with the location"-Appellants advance a similar argument
as was presented with regard to a similar limitation recited in claim 4. Br.
25-26. For similar reasons, discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of
Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14.
Claims 16-18
Claim 16 is directed to a plurality of entities that have been invited to
a meeting at a location. A first distribution list is updated to reflect a change
of status of a first entity with respect to a location. A second distribution list
is claimed "to identify at least one entity of the plurality of entities that is
absent from the location but has been invited to the meeting." Claim 16.
11
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
Appellants assert the Examiner erred in relying on Horvitz to teach or
suggest the second distribution list limitation. Br. 28-29. In particular,
Appellants argue:
Horvitz does not disclose or suggest a second distribution list,
which is not the same as a first distribution list (that is associated
with a location), that is arranged to identify at least one entity of
a plurality of entities that is absent from the location but has been
invited to a meeting.
Br. 29.
Horvitz, as relied upon by the Examiner (Ans. 18), teaches:
The context of a person can include, for example, the person's
presence or absence at a scheduled meeting. For example,
calendar information concerning a person can indicate that a
person is supposed to be at a meeting at a certain time. Therefore,
the system 200 may have dynamically assigned the person to a
group associated with the meeting (e.g., to ensure person receives
meeting reminders). However, when the person becomes late for
the meeting, the system 100 can dynamically assign the person
to an additional group (e.g., people who are late for the meeting).
Horvitz, col. 8, 11. 19-28. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Horvitz
teaches or suggests a second distribution list (i.e., an additional group) for
individuals that have been invited to a meeting but are not yet present at the
location.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 and
claim 17, which depends therefrom and which was not argued separately.
Claim 18 depends from claim 16 and recites:
wherein the change in the status of the entity is a deregistration
of the entity from the location, and wherein the second
arrangement is arranged to update the first distribution list to
reflect the change in the status of the entity with respect to the
12
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
location by excluding a reference to the entity from the first
distribution list.
Appellants concede Horvitz teaches deleting a member from a group,
but assert this is different from, and does not suggest, excluding a reference
from a distribution list. Br. 30-31.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because Appellants do not
provide sufficient persuasive evidence or argument to support their position.
It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements,
which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative
value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not
evidence). Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, "Horvitz detects the
presence or absence of a person at a scheduled meeting location and allows
for dynamic deletion of people from groups which in combination with
Olenick reads on the [A]ppellants' dependent claim 18." Ans. 20; see also
Horvitz, col. 8, 11. 26-30, col. 25, 11. 29-34, col. 28, 11. 32-59.
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 18.
Claims 19 and 23
Appellants advance similar arguments against the Examiner's
rejection of claim 19 as were presented regarding the rejection of claim 8.
Br. 32-34 cf Br. 20-23. For similar reasons, we do not find these
arguments persuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 19 and claim 23, which depends therefrom
and which was not argued separately.
13
Appeal2014-005825
Application 11/612,037
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19, 21, 23, and
28-32.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
14