11551668 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)

Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 2014

11551668 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PATRICK JOSEPH O’SULLIVAN, SEAN CALLANAN, CAROL S. ZIMMET, RUTHIE D. LYLE, GARY DENNER, and CYNTHIA E. BARBER-MINGO ____________________ Appeal 2011-013334 Application 11/551,668 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013334 Application 11/551,668 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10-19, 21 and 22, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a method and system for eliminating time lost in the initial stages of a Web conference due to participants not being in-place on-time.” Spec. 2, ll. 3-4. Claims 1, 21, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A computer-implemented method for eliminating the time lost in initial stages of a Web conference due to participants not being in-place on-time, comprising: activating a client system agent process executing in a client system associated with a conference participant prior to a time at which said Web conference is scheduled to start, wherein said activating includes automatically sending information from a server system process to said client system agent process that is needed to join said conference participant to said Web conference, wherein said information needed to join said conference participant to said Web conference includes a pointer to a Web page associated with said Web conference and login information required to log said conference participant into said Web conference; Appeal 2011-013334 Application 11/551,668 3 automatically performing preliminary steps required to join said conference participant to said Web conference, by said client system agent process, prior to said time at which said Web conference is scheduled to start, wherein said preliminary steps include launching a Web browser on said conference participant's computer system, loading said pointer to said Web page associated with said Web conference into said Web browser and providing said login information to a Web conference application on behalf of said conference participant; going into a listening mode by said client system agent process in response to detecting that said client system is disconnected from a network providing communication between said server system and said client system; and automatically joining said Web participant to said Web conference, by said client system agent process, in response to detecting that said client system has become re-connected to said network providing communication between said server system and said client system. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Chakrabarti Santos Dorenbosch Mannaru Aldrey US 6,163,692 US 2003/0158900 A1 US 2004/0064355 A1 US 2006/0031290 A1 US 2008/0037751 A1 Dec. 19, 2000 Aug. 21, 2003 Apr. 1, 2004 Feb. 9, 2006 Feb. 14, 2008 Appeal 2011-013334 Application 11/551,668 4 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on appeal:1 I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10-18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aldrey, Santos, Mannaru, and Chakrabarti.2 II. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aldrey, Santos, Mannaru, Chakrabarti, and Dorenbosch. ANALYSIS Rejection I Appellants argue that the “combination of Aldrey, Santos, Mannaru and Chakrabarti does not disclose or suggest” the method of claim 1. App. Br. 13-14. In particular, Appellants argue that Mannauru’s disclosure of sending a re-invite signal from a server to a participant in response to determining that the participant is online “stands in contrast” to the claim 1 limitation of the client system agent process automatically joining the conference. Id. at 14-15; see also Reply Br. 6 (arguing Mannaru does not disclose a client system process that automatically joins a participant to a 1 The Examiner’s Answer also lists a rejection of claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Ans. 5. The Examiner focuses on language found in claims 7 and 8 and only rejects claims 9 and 10 due to their dependency on claim 7. Id. This rejection, however, has been rendered moot because claims 7-9 have been cancelled (App. Br. 2; Reply Br. 4; Advisory Action mailed Mar. 8, 2011) and claim 10 has been amended to depend from claim 1 (Reply Br. 4; Advisory Action mailed Mar. 8, 2011). We thus do not address this rejection. 2 The Examiner mistakenly includes cancelled claims 7-9 in this ground of rejection. Ans. 6. Appeal 2011-013334 Application 11/551,668 5 conference upon detecting that the client has been re-connected to the server). This line of argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “automatically joining said Web participant to said Web conference, by said client system agent process.” This claim language requires that the client system agent process perform the joining step, but does not preclude involvement of other elements in carrying out the step. Mannaru discloses a re-invite signal or message being automatically sent to the participant (i.e., a client) “by the method 200 or conferencing software or program in response to determining that the disconnected participant is online or reconnectable.” Mannaru, para. [0023]. Mannaru further discloses that the participant rejoins the conference by accepting the re-invitation. Id. at para. [0024]. Although not expressly stated as such in Mannaru, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the participant utilizes a client system to accept the re-invitation and thereby rejoin the conference. See, e.g., Mannaru, para. [0018] (discussing a participant using the client’s graphical user interface). So, although the “conferencing software or program” (presumably executed by a server) sends the re-invite message, the client system completes the step of joining the participant to the conference by accepting the re-invitation. Accordingly, Mannaru discloses that a client system is involved in performing the step of joining the participant to the conference in response to detecting that the client system has become re- connected to the network. The Examiner concedes that the client system does not operate automatically to join the participant to the conference but concludes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to reconnect Appeal 2011-013334 Application 11/551,668 6 the participant automatically as taught by Chakrabarti. Ans. 10. Appellants’ argument that “the reconnection of the telephone connection described in Chakrabarti is specifically in response to a determination that a mobile telephone unintentionally become disconnected” (App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 6) does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusion of obviousness. Chakrabarti discloses, preferably in “a telecommunication network having a plurality of mobile telephones,” automatically establishing reconnection of a conference communication link between a mobile telephone and the conference bridge. Chakrabarti, col. 3, ll. 4-16. Chakrabarti’s focus on mobile telephones would not prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from realizing that the disclosed automatic reconnection techniques could be useful in other types of telecommunication networks. An 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.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Furthermore, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417; see also Id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Appellants also argue that Mannaru does not disclose “a client system process going into a listening mode in response to determining that the client system is no longer connected to the server.” Reply Br. 6. Claim 1 merely Appeal 2011-013334 Application 11/551,668 7 recites “going into a listening mode by said client system agent process”; the claim language does not provide any specificity as to the “listening mode.” We also note that Appellants’ Specification mentions the term “listening mode” only once (Spec. 9) and does not discuss or ascribe any particular meaning, requiring the term to be broadly construed. Mannaru discloses that one approach for determining whether a disconnected participant is online or able to be reconnected to a conference is “receiving a response to a polling signal sent by a conferencing server.” Mannaru, para. [0023]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the participant’s client system would receive the polling signal and send the response. The client system can be broadly construed as being in a “listening mode” when receiving the polling signals. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. In view of the above, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants advance no separate arguments in connection with dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 10-18, relying only on these claims’ dependency from claim 1 for patentability. App. Br. 16. As such, claims 2, 4, 5, and 10-18 fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). In addition, Appellants rely on the same arguments asserted in connection with claim 1 in arguing the patentability of independent claims 21 and 22.3 App. Br. 15-16. Because these arguments 3 Claim 22 calls for a computer program product including a computer readable storage medium. Should there be further prosecution of this application, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether claim 22 recites patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential) (recited Appeal 2011-013334 Application 11/551,668 8 are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra, we also sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 22. Rejection II Regarding the rejection of claim 19, Appellants assert that “[a]dding the teachings of Dorenbosch does not remedy the shortcomings of Aldrey, Santos, Mannaru and Chakrabarti.” App. Br. 17. Because we find no deficiency in the combination of Aldrey, Santos, Mannaru, and Chakrabarti with respect to claim 1 for the reasons discussed supra, we also sustain the rejection of claim 19. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10- 19, 21 and 22. 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls machine-readable storage medium held ineligible under § 101 because it included transitory signals).