Ex Parte Mason et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 12, 201310952305 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANDREW MASON and MICHAEL SHARLAND ____________________ Appeal 2010-010976 Application 10/952,305 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010976 Application 10/952,305 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Introduction The claims are directed to method and apparatus for automatically setting a media server greeting, such as an “out of office” outgoing message, automatically responsive to detection of a setting change of an e-mail system default message. (Abstract.) STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A telecommunications apparatus, comprising: a first messaging service; a second messaging service; and a synchronization agent automatically querying said second messaging service for a current outgoing message for second messaging service users and monitoring for changes in whether a default outgoing message is set and configured to selectively synchronize an outgoing message on said first messaging service with said current default outgoing message on said second messaging Appeal 2010-010976 Application 10/952,305 3 service, synchronization being selected responsive to changes in said current default outgoing message. REFERENCES Shaffer US 6,434,222 B1 Aug. 13, 2002 Amin US 2004/0156484 A1 Aug. 12, 2004 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claim 1-28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amin and Shaffer (Ans. 4-6). ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-28 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Amin and Schaffer because the combination does not teach or suggest “a synchronization agent automatically querying said second messaging service for a current outgoing message for second messaging service users and monitoring for changes in whether a default outgoing message is set and configured to selectively synchronize an outgoing message on said first messaging service with said current default outgoing message on said second messaging service, synchronization being selected responsive to changes in said current default outgoing message” (App. Br. 6-11). Specifically, Appellants argue Schaffer teaches a passive system that does not query a message service for a current outgoing message, but instead, reacts to receipt of a message (App. Br. 7). According to Appellants, the configuration control module 209 of Schaffer is not actively querying, for Appeal 2010-010976 Application 10/952,305 4 example, the voice mail system (App. Br. 8 and 9). Instead, Appellants contend, the configuration control module passively monitors activity reacting only to user action, i.e., clicking on a hypertext icon (App. Br. 8). Further, Appellants assert the various modules of Schaffer are also passive as they respond and do not query instead relying on the messaging system itself to act (App. 10). Thus, Appellants, argue since neither teach an active system taking action, neither Amin nor Schaffer teach or suggest the disputed limitation (App. 10-11). Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Amin and Schaffer teaches or suggests suggest “a synchronization agent automatically querying said second messaging service for a current outgoing message for second messaging service users and monitoring for changes in whether a default outgoing message is set and configured to selectively synchronize an outgoing message on said first messaging service with said current default outgoing message on said second messaging service, synchronization being selected responsive to changes in said current default outgoing message” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We agree with Appellants’ arguments (see Reply Br 1-2). The portions of Shaffer cited by the Examiner as teaching “querying said second messaging service for a current outgoing message for second messaging service users” describes a passive step and not an active step of querying the second messaging service as recited. The Examiner argues Schaffer teaches actively querying to determine the current default message (Ans. 15). Appeal 2010-010976 Application 10/952,305 5 However, we find Schaffer teaches upon reception of a call, the voice messaging module 206a in the configuration setup interface 209 accessing the memory 208 for a user-defined greeting at a predetermined location and if none at that predetermined location, accesses the memory 208 at a different location for the user-defined greeting (col. 4, ll. 32-38). We do not find that this teaches or suggests querying the second messaging service for a current outgoing message. Nor do we find that this teaching taken in combination with the teachings of Amin teaches or suggests querying the second messaging service for a current outgoing message for second messaging service users. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination of Amin and Schaffer teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited independent claims 12, 15, and 26. Dependent claims 2-11, 13, 14, 16-25, 27, and 28 stand with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Amin and Schaffer. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amin and Schaffer is reversed. REVERSED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation