Ex Parte Liu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201612493965 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/493,965 06/29/2009 Ying Fei Liu NC69699-U S-PAT 1329 100809 7590 01/04/2017 Core Wireless Licensing Ltd 5601 Granite Parkway Suite 1300 Plano, TX 75024 EXAMINER ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2659 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): ipadmin-core@core-wireless.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YING FEI LIU and XIAOHUA HOU1 Appeal 2015-007116 Application 12/493,965 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Invention Appellants disclose a controller “configured to display a message text, receive an input indicating a keyword[, to] determine an associated operation 1 Appellants identify Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-007116 Application 12/493,965 and to generate a response message according to the associated operation.” Abstract. Representative Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. An apparatus comprising a controller, wherein said controller comprises at least one processor and at least one memory including program instructions, the at least one memory and the program instructions configured to cause the apparatus at least to: display a message text received in a message sent to a user of the apparatus over a network from a device of another user; receive an input from an operator of the apparatus indicating a keyword in the received message text; determine an operation associated with the keyword; generate a response message including information based upon the operation associated with the keyword; and send the response message to the other user. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1—7, 9-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pascal (US 2010/0159883 Al; June 24, 2010) and Jablokov (US 2010/0058200 Al; Mar. 4, 2010). Final Act. 2-A. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pascal, Jablokov, and Satoh (US 2004/0177064 Al; Sept. 9, 2004). Final Act. 4—5 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Pascal and Jablokov teaches or suggests “receiving] an input from an operator of the 2 Appeal 2015-007116 Application 12/493,965 apparatus indicating a keyword in the received message text,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Pascal’s use of keywords established from message content teaches or suggests receiving an input indicating a keyword of the message text. Final Act. 2 (citing Pascal 25— 45). The Examiner relies on Jablokov’s determination that a highlighted word has been selected by a phone operator for display of additional content to teach or suggest the input being received from an operator of the apparatus. Final Act. 3 (citing Jablokov 1178). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Pascal’s system merely “infers the user’s intention . . . [using] predictive tools to analyze the message and infer a user’s intention — based on the message” rather than an input indicating a keyword of the message text. Br. 7. Appellants contend that Jablokov does not cure the alleged deficiency of Pascal because in Jablokov “the user DOES NOT highlight the words. Rather, Jablokov discloses that the . . . system highlights the words.” Br. 9. Appellants argue that “[u]sing an automatic system to highlight the text — as disclosed in Jablokov — is NOT the same as receiving an input from an operator to indicate a keyword in a received message text.” Br. 9-10. 3 Appeal 2015-007116 Application 12/493,965 We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the Examiner does not rely on the highlighting of text in Jablokov to teach or suggest the input from an operator indicating a keyword in the received message text. Rather, the Examiner relies on the selection of text that has been highlighted (i.e., annotated to indicate that it can be selected) to teach or suggest the claimed input indicating (i.e., selecting) a keyword in a received message text. See Ans. 4—5. We find reasonable the Examiner’s finding that Jablokov’s keyword highlighting “merely provides a means to notify the user that the information is available. The user still must provide some action so that some highlighted keyword is selected for use by the system.” Ans. 5. The Examiner’s finding is not only unrebutted, it is supported by Jablokov’s teaching that a “text message—including the highlighted keywords—is . . . communicated 1219 to Betty’s mobile phone 14” (Jablokov 1177), at which point a transcription of a recorded utterance, made at Betty’s phone 14, “is compared to the highlighted words” so that “[u]pon a match, it is determined that one of the highlighted words has been selected by Betty for display of. . . additional content” {id. 1178). Thus, the recorded, transcribed utterance matching (i.e., selecting) a highlighted word (i.e., a keyword) in Jablokov teaches or suggests receive an input from an operator of the apparatus indicating a keyword in the received message text. Appellants further argue Pascal teaches away from the claimed invention because “Pascal requires using a system to analyze a message” and that “operator input is contrary to a system using rules-based searching techniques.” Br. 7—8. However, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, which does not preclude the use of 4 Appeal 2015-007116 Application 12/493,965 automated techniques to perform additional operations such as searching without reliance on operator input. Therefore, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. For these reasons we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Pascal and Jablokov teaches or suggests “receiv[ing] an input from an operator of the apparatus indicating a keyword in the received message text,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claim 1, and claims 2—19, which Appellants do not argue separately. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—19. 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(f). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation