Ex Parte LAU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13659472 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
13/659,472 10/24/2012 MING TUNG LAU CN920110096US1_8150-0310 1027
52021 7590 03/01/2017
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, EL 33498
EXAMINER
CHANG, JULIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MING TUNG LAU and WAI MAN LEE
Appeal 2016-006050
Application 13/659,4721
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—12, 14—22, 24, and 25. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to Instant Messaging (“IM”)
system processing, including obtaining contents of an IM session,
identifying participants of the IM session, extracting keywords of the IM
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is IBM Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-006050
Application 13/659,472
session from the contents, and associating the keywords and the participants
with the corresponding IM session. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A method for an Instant Messaging IM system, comprising:
obtaining contents of an IM session;
identifying participants of the IM session;
extracting, using a central processing unit, keywords of
the IM session from the contents;
associating the keywords of the IM session, the
participants of the IM session with the corresponding IM
session; and
clustering IM sessions, wherein
each IM session cluster comprises at least one IM
session and the contents of the at least one IM session
have a related topic, and
the at least one clustered IM session includes a
message from each of the participants of the IM session.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, 11, 18, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Genty et
al. (US 2007/0168445 Al; published July 19, 2007) (hereinafter “Genty”)
and Gailloux et al. (US 8,819,145 Bl; issued Aug. 26, 2014) (hereinafter
“Gailloux”).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 4—7, 9, 10, 14—17, 19, 20, 24, and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Genty, Gailloux, and Davis et al. (US 2009/0177484 Al; published July 9,
2009) (hereinafter “Davis”).
2 The Examiner withdrew the § 101 rejection of claims 21, 22, 24, and 25.
Ans. 3.
2
Appeal 2016-006050
Application 13/659,472
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 12, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Genty, Gailloux, and
Kieselbach et al. (US 2007/0143423 Al; published June 21, 2007)
(hereinafter “Kieselbach”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the June 30, 2015 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—13)
and (2) the March 25, 2016 Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—6). We highlight
and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.3
Clustering IM sessions
Appellants argue the combination of Genty and Gailloux, and
Gailloux in particular, fails to teach or suggest “clustering IM sessions,” as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 23—25. According to Appellants, Gailloux
instead “teaches clustering different platform-independent messages,” rather
than clustering IM sessions. App. Br. 24—25 (citing Gailloux Fig. 4
(teaching clustering a virtual message, an IM session, a SMS message, and
an email message); col. 5,11. 4—11). Furthermore, Appellants argue Gailloux
teaches only a single IM session being clustered together with other
3 In light of our findings, we need not address the Examiner’s alternative
findings (Ans. 4—6) and arguments (e.g., Internet Relay Chat (“IRC”) being
different than IM) regarding same (App. Br. 24, Reply Br. 2—5).
3
Appeal 2016-006050
Application 13/659,472
messages (e.g., SMS, emails). App. Br. 24 (citing Gailloux Fig. 4); Reply
Br. 2-3.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination, and Gailloux in
particular, teaches the disputed limitation. See Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 6.
Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Gailloux teaches or suggests
“combining ‘multiple platform-specific sessions’” — “the platforms may
include instant messaging.” Ans. 4 (citing Gailloux col. 1,11. 25—30; col. 3,
11. 23—30; col. 5,11. 4—23). We also agree with the Examiner that “Gailloux
does not limit the IM platform to only one IM platform.” Id.', see also In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account
not only specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).
Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that multiple
IM platforms were then available and that the scope of Gailloux’s teachings
would include multiple IM platforms. Ans. 4 (citing
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients (finding
“[cjombining different IM platforms may require combining disparate
sessions because the IM platforms may not be compatible with each other
(e.g., AOL AIM and ICQ)”). Furthermore, Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence that Gailloux’s teachings require that the combined
multiple platform-specific sessions be from different platforms. Gailloux
col. 3,11. 23—30; see also KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). Lastly, in further support of the
4
Appeal 2016-006050
Application 13/659,472
findings, we note claim 1 recites “each IM session cluster comprises at least
one IM session,” rather than requiring multiple sessions. App. Br. 30.
CONCLUSION
Based on our above findings, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the
following claims which Appellants contend stand or fall with claim 1: (i)
claims 8, 11, 18, and 21 (App. Br. 23); (ii) claims 4—7, 9, 10, 14—17, 19, 20,
24, and 25 (App. Br. 26); and (iii) claims 2, 12, and, 22 (App. Br. 26).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—12, 14—22,
24, and 25.
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
5