Ex Parte Kurabayashi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 11, 2018

13820716 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2018)

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.
2564.737BS 1022
EXAMINER
DWIVEDI, MAHESH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/820,716 03/04/2013
86636 7590 01/12/2018
BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C.
1925 BALLENGER AVENUE, STE. 560
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
Shuichi Kurabayashi
01/12/2018 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 SHUICHI KURABAYASHI
Appeal 2017-007962
Application 13/820,716
Technology Center 2100
Before: JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-007962
Application 13/820,716
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—7, 9, 11, 13—16, 20, and 22—28.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Br.” filed Nov. 21, 2016) and the Answer
(“Ans.” mailed Jan. 25, 2017) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Brief. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
INVENTION
Claims 1 and 28 are representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
1. A data management system having a processor and
a memory, comprising:
a data retrieval unit configured to retrieve data files
associated with a search query from storage;
a display;
a list presentation unit configured to provide, via
the display, the retrieved data files in an ordered
format;
2
Appeal 2017-007962
Application 13/820,716
a communication history analysis unit configured
to analyze a communication history of a user with
respective acquaintances of the user;
a relationship determination unit configured to
calculate relationship indicators for the respective
acquaintances associated with the retrieved data files,
based at least in part on the communication history of
the user with the respective acquaintances associated
with the retrieved data files analyzed by the
communication history analysis unit; and
a data list customization unit configured to re­
order the retrieved data files based at least in part on the
relationship indicators for the respective acquaintances
of the user calculated by the relationship determination
unit,
wherein the list presentation unit is further
configured to provide, via the display, the retrieved
data files as re-ordered by the data list customization
unit,
wherein the relationship determination unit is
further configured to detect an association between
the retrieved data files and acquaintances of the user
based at least in part on metadata of the retrieved data
files,
wherein the retrieved data files are retrieved by the
data retrieval unit from a user account that utilizes a
local storage or a cloud-based storage, and
wherein the retrieved data files include at least one
of image files, audio files, video files, document files,
and message files.
3
Appeal 2017-007962
Application 13/820,716
28. The data management system of Claim 26,
wherein the predetermined weight function gives greater
weight to acquaintances of the user enumerated in the user’s
contact list.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
1. Claims 1,11, 20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph. Final Act. 2—5.
2. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112
(pre-AIA), second paragraph. Final 5.
3. Claims 1, 7—9, 11, 16—18, 20, and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mukai (US
2011/0093454 Al, pub. Apr. 21, 2011), Cottingham et al. (US
2011/0302177 Al, pub. Dec. 8, 2011, hereinafter “Cottingham”),
Terrano et al. (US 2013/0031155 Al, pub. Jan. 31, 2013,
hereinafter “Terrano”), and further in view of Bilinski et al, (US
2014/0114966 Al, pub. Apr. 24, 2014, hereinafter “Bilinski”).
Final Act. 6-42.
4. Claims 3—6, 13—15, and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Mukai, Cottingham, Terrano,
Bilinski, and further in view of Zang et al. (US 8,639,757 Bl, iss.
Jan. 28, 2014, hereinafter “Zang”). Final Act. 42—52.
5. Claims 22—23, and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mukai, Cottingham, Terrano, Bilinski,
Zang and further in view of Baatarjav et al., (Are You My Friend?,
paper submitted for Department of Computer Science and
Engineering, University of North Texas, (2010)). Final Act 52—55.
4
Appeal 2017-007962
Application 13/820,716
6. Claim 27 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mukai, Cottingham, Terrano, Bilinski, and
further in view of Wolas-Shiva et al. (US 2008/0208922 Al, pub.
Aug. 28, 2008, hereinafter “Shiva”). Final Act. 55—57.
7. Claim 28 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mukai, Cottingham, Terrano, Bilinski, and
further in view of Turski et al. (US 2006/0173961 Al, pub. Aug. 3,
2006, hereinafter “Turski”). Final Act. 57—58.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s
arguments. In particular, the Examiner finds that paragraphs 21 and 22 of
the Specification (Ans. 5—7) do not support the “re-ordered” aspect of
independent claims 1,11, and 20.
Appellant contends, and we agree, that in the Specification, Figure 1A
shows data files that are then re-ordered as shown in Figure IB. (See also
paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Specification.). We thus agree with Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that the originally filed
Specification fails to demonstrate that Appellant possessed the limitations of
data files as “re-ordered.” We concur and will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1,11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. f 112, first and second paragraphs
5
Appeal 2017-007962
Application 13/820,716
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejections (Final Act. 4—5), and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 7—9) to the
Appellant’s arguments. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion that the
Examiner erred in finding the Specification fails to demonstrate Appellant
had possession of the terms “greater weight to acquaintances,” and thus
claim 28 is indefinite when interpreted in light of the Specification as
claimed. In particular, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that although
the Specification discloses giving weight to “recent” and “past”
communications; there is no disclosure in the Specification for giving
weights to acquaintances in a user’s contact list. Final Act. 4 (citing
Specification, para. 26).
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rationale to
support the rejections. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs.
Obviousness Rejections
We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejections in
light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we
have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. The
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each argument
presented by the Appellants on pages 9 through 31 of the Answer. We have
reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions made in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer. We
adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
6
Appeal 2017-007962
Application 13/820,716
Brief. Br. 16—28. We observe that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut such
findings, including the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s arguments.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—7, 9, 11, 13—16,
20, and 22—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1,11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—7, 9, 11, 13—16, 20,
and 22—28 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7