Ex Parte Mohler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

13655052 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 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.
13/655,052 10/18/2012 Bridget Mohler 4366JKH-49 5519
48500 7590
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
AYAD, MARIA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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):
cjacquet@ sheridanross.com
pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com
edocket @ sheridanross .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIDGET MOHLER
Appeal 2016-000179
Application 13/655,052
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—8, 10—14, and 16—22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 9 and 15 have been canceled.
App. Br. 2.
We reverse.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed May 18, 2015 (“App.
Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed September 29, 2015 (“Reply Br.”); and
the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 11, 2015 (“Ans.”).
2 Appellant identifies Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000179
Application 13/655,052
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below (with disputed limitation in italics):
1. A communication system, comprising:
a virtual reality module configured to receive meeting content
for a user associated with a first and second meeting for which the
user is scheduled to attend and perform the following operations:
(v) match, by one or more processors, contact information for
the user to a virtual reality avatar;
(vi) automatically provide, by the one or more processors, at
least a portion of the meeting content to the first meeting along with
the virtual reality avatar;
(vii) determine that the user has joined the first meeting; and
(viii) in response to determining that the user has joined the
first meeting, soliciting validation of the contact information for the
user associated with the first meeting.
References
Guirguis US 2004/0191744 A1 Sept. 30,2004
Wynn et al. US 2004/0261013 A1 Dec. 23, 2004
Schindler US 2009/0210822 Al Aug. 20,2009
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1—3, 5—8, 10-14, 16—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wynn and Guirguis. Final Act. 2—12.
Claims 4, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wynn, Guirguis, and Schindler. Final Act. 12—16.
2
Appeal 2016-000179
Application 13/655,052
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Guirguis does not teach “in response to determining
that the user has joined the first meeting, soliciting validation of the contact
information for the user associated with the first meeting,” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues Guirguis teaches that the
user is solicited to validate the contact information before joining the
meeting, not after (“in response to”) joining the meeting. Reply Br. 5.
Appellant asserts there is no teaching in Guirguis of the user joining an
online meeting after which the user name and password are solicited. App.
Br. 7.
The Examiner finds that the system in Guirguis determines that a user
has joined a meeting when the user is trying to use the system. Ans. 3
(citing Guirguis 1164). We disagree. Guirguis discloses:
[Wjhen a user tries to use the system, he will be required to
authenticate himself (such as, e.g., by entering a user name,
password and/or the like). In exemplary embodiments, the
information will be checked against a customer information
system (CIS) database and only those courses the user is
authorized for will be unlocked (i.e., accessible by the student).
Guirguis 1164. Therefore, Guirguis discloses that the system solicits
validation information before the user joins a meeting, i.e., a course. Indeed,
the user in Guirguis is not allowed to join a meeting (course) until validation
information is entered and the user is authenticated. We do not agree with
the Examiner that trying to use the system is within the broadest reasonable
interpretation of having joined a meeting. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
The Examiner finds accessing online meetings in Guirguis is
analogous to the arrival of an attendee at a meeting location. Ans. 3^4.
However, a person’s arrival at a meeting location does not mean that the
3
Appeal 2016-000179
Application 13/655,052
person has joined the meeting. If this is an analogous situation, then,
according to Guirguis, the user would be required to authenticate himself at
the meeting location before being allowed entry into the meeting.
As such, we are constrained by the record before us not to sustain the
rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejection of claims 8 and 14, which recite
commensurate limitations. We also do not sustain the rejections of claims
2—7 and 21, which depend from claim 1, claims 10-13 and 22, which depend
from claim 8, and claims 16—20, which depend from claim 14.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—8, 10—14, and 16—22.
REVERSED
4