Ex Parte Moyers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2016

13432837 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/432,837
28479 7590
EDOUARD GARCIA
Attorney At Law
101 First Street
Suite 293
Los Altos, CA 94022
03/28/2012
07/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Josh Moyers
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
014/042001 2897
EXAMINER
WEBER,JOYM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2016 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):
ed@egpatent.com
ed@edgarcia.com
egpatent@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSH MOYERS and DAVID VAN WIE
Appeal2015-002280
Application 13/432,837
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002280
Application 13/432,837
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1--41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 31 under appeal read as follows (emphasis
added):
1. A method, comprising:
administering realtime communications between network nodes
respectively associated with communicants in a virtual area;
detecting assemblies of co present ones of the communicants
in the virtual area;
for each of respective ones of the detected assemblies, receiving
information regarding subject matter of the detected assembly from
at least one of the communicants associated with the detected
assembly;
for each of respective ones of the detected assemblies,
generating a respective meeting object linked to interaction
information derived from communicant interactions in the assembly
and linked to the received information regarding subject matter of the
detected assembly;
selecting ones of the meeting objects based on a query on the
generated meeting objects;
determining respective meeting summary data for the
assemblies corresponding to the selected meeting objects based on the
interaction information and the received information regarding subject
matter of the assemblies; and
transmitting the determined meeting summary data in a
format suitable for concurrent display on a respective one of the
network nodes of a communicant who is associated with the query on
the meeting objects.
2
Appeal2015-002280
Application 13/432,837
31. A method, comprising[:]
by a network node:
establishing a session with a virtual area platform administering
realtime communications between network nodes respectively
associated with communicants in a virtual area;
transmitting to the virtual area platform a request for a
visualization of assembly activity in the virtual area, the request
comprising a query on attributes associated with assemblies of
copresent communicants in the virtual area;
in connection with the request, receiving summaries of
respective ones of the assemblies of copresent communicants in the
virtual area having attributes matching the query, the received
summaries comprising interaction information derived from
communicant interactions in the respective assemblies and
information regarding subject matter of the respective assemblies of
copresent communicants;
presenting a concurrent visualization of the summaries on a
display.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6-17, and 19--41 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ludwig et al.
(US 2004/0107255 Al) and Abraham et al. (US 2007/0233785 Al).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 18 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ludwig, Abraham, and
Jerrard-Dunne et al. (US 2009/0300521 Al).
3
Appeal2015-002280
Application 13/432,837
Appellants ; Contentions 1
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because, as to the "detecting" element:
Contrary to the Examiner's position, however, allowing a
user to initiate a collaborative multimedia session and select
one or more desired participants does not constitute "detecting
assemblies of copresent ones of the communicants in the virtual
area" as recited in claim 1. Instead, Ludwig's A VNM sets up a
collaborative multimedia session in response to the user's
selection of the desired participant and session type (see, e.g.,
i-f 127); there is no need to detect assemblies of copresent
communicants in the virtual area.
App. Br. 12.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because, as to the "receiving" element:
Contrary to the Examiner's interpretation, the conveyance of
"meeting-specific digital content" (see, e.g., i-f 27: " ... email,
instant messages, teleconference, video teleconferencing,
e-meeting communications; co-browsing; and the like. . .. ")
between users in a collaboration space does not constitute
"information regarding" subject matter of a meeting in a
collaboration space; instead, such "meeting-specific digital
content" is the subject matter of the meeting.
App. Br. 14. 2
1 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein.
2 Contentions 2 and 3 reproduced here are exemplary of Appellants'
additional contentions which were deemed to overstate the differences
between Appellants' claimed invention and the prior art. As those
additional contentions were unpersuasive and are not determinative of
the result reached herein, they are not discussed particularly herein.
4
Appeal2015-002280
Application 13/432,837
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because, as to the "transmitting" element:
Contrary to the Examiner's position, however, a recorded
teleconference session does not constitute meeting summary
data for the assemblies (plural) corresponding to the selected
meeting objects based on the interaction information and the
information linked to the selected meeting objects that is
transmitted in a format suitable for concurrent display on a
respective one of the network nodes of a communicant who is
associated with the query on the meeting objects as recited in
claim 1. Instead, the recorded teleconference session
constitutes a single multimedia object derived from participant
interaction in a single collaborative multimedia session (which
the Examiner has assumed to be a virtual area).
App. Br. 15-16.
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because, as to the "receiving" element:
Contrary to the Examiner's position, however, the hold
list display that identifies on-hold calls with a corresponding
face icon and (optionally) the length of time that each party is
on hold (see i-f 150 of Ludwig) does not constitute "receiving
summaries of respective ones of the assemblies of copresent
communicants in the virtual area" as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 24--25.
5. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because, as to the "presenting" element:
Contrary to the Examiner's position, however, the
presentation of a recorded teleconference, however, does not
constitute a presentation of a concurrent visualization of
summaries of respective assemblies (plural). Instead, the
recorded teleconference constitutes a single multimedia object
derived from participant interaction in a single collaborative
multimedia session (which the Examiner has assumed to be a
virtual area).
5
Appeal2015-002280
Application 13/432,837
Contrary to the Examiner's pos1t10n, however, the
presentation of a recorded teleconference session does not
constitute meeting summary data for the assemblies (plural)
corresponding to the selected meeting objects based on the
interaction information and the information linked to the
selected meeting objects that is transmitted in a format suitable
for concurrent display on a respective one of the network nodes
of a communicant who is associated with the query on the
meeting objects as recited in claim 1. Instead, the recorded
teleconference session constitutes a single multimedia object
derived from participant interaction in a single collaborative
multimedia session (which the Examiner has assumed to be a
virtual area).
App. Br. 26.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 31 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
As to Appellants' above contention 2, we disagree. Contrary to
Appellants' argument, we conclude that "meeting-specific digital content"
which is the subject matter of the meeting does constitute "information
regarding" subject matter of a meeting in a collaboration space. Appellants'
Specification recites a list of exemplary information that may link to a
meeting object. The list includes:
information exchanged between participants (e.g.: realtime
data streams, such as recorded chat data, audio, data and video
data; recorded application sharing data; recorded co-browsing
data; and data files uploaded by communicants).
Spec. i-f 79, emphasis added. Appellants' claim 1 recites:
6
Appeal2015-002280
Application 13/432,837
generating a respective meeting object linked to interaction
information derived from communicant interactions in the
assembly and linked to the received information regarding
subject matter of the detected assembly.
Claim 1, emphasis added. We deem the exemplary "information exchanged
between participants" to fall within the claimed category of received
information regarding subject matter of the detected assembly rather than
interaction information derived from communicant interactions. We find
nothing in Appellants' arguments, Specification, or claim that precludes this
result.
As to Appellants' above contention 3, we disagree. Contrary to
Appellants' argument, the "transmitting" step does not recite plural
assemblies as argued. Other than reciting the complete "transmitting" step,
we do not find where Appellants explain which language they believe
provides the plural requirement in the "transmitting" step.
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we agree. As argued by
Appellants, setting up a collaborative multimedia session in response to the
user's selection of the desired participant and session type does not
constitute "detecting assemblies of copresent ones of the communicants in
the virtual area" as recited in claim 1. The analysis presented by the
Examiner is insufficient to show this argued limitation.
As to Appellants' above contentions 4 and 5, we agree. The analysis
presented by the Examiner is insufficient to show meeting summary data for
the plural assemblies, and is insufficient to show a presentation of a
concurrent visualization of summaries of respective plural assemblies.
7
Appeal2015-002280
Application 13/432,837
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1--41 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 1--41 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--41 are reversed.
REVERSED
8