Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2013

11557583 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/557,583 11/08/2006 Patrick O'Sullivan CAM920060104US1 (152) 1785
46321 7590 07/01/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
DESROSIERS, EVANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PATRICK O'SULLIVAN, CYNTHIA E. BARBER-MINGO,
GARY DENNER, RUTHIE D. LYLE, and CAROL S. ZIMMET
____________

Appeal 2011-002185
Application 11/557,583
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JASON V. MORGAN, and JENNIFER L.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
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.

Appeal 2011-002185
Application 11/557,583

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to collaborative computing and more
particularly to collaborator polling in a collaborative computing
environment. See Spec. [0001].
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A method for collaborative arbitration of polling
results in a collaborative environment, the method comprising:

placing a poll within a message by a calendaring and
scheduling (C&S) server providing calendaring and scheduling
functionality for communicatively coupled collaborative clients
over a computer communications network;

sending the message over the computer communications
network to respective ones of the collaborative clients for a
select group of collaborators in the collaborative environment;

receiving poll results in the C&S server from a
collaborator in the select group in a reply to the message;

extracting the poll results from the reply and placing the
poll within a new message along with the extracted poll results;
and,

sending the new message to the select group over the
computer communications network.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Banerjee (US 2003/0033302 A1; published Feb. 13,
2003), and Chandra (US 2002/0138582 A1; published Sept. 26, 2002). Ans.
3-10.
Appeal 2011-002185
Application 11/557,583

3
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Banerjee discloses every recited feature of
illustrative claim 1, except that Banerjee does not explicitly teach “by a
calendaring and scheduling (C&S) server providing calendaring and
scheduling functionality for communicatively coupled collaborative clients
over a computer communications network.” Ans. 4. The Examiner,
however, relies on Chandra for teaching this feature. Ans. 4-5.
On the other hand, Appellants contend that Banerjee fails to teach or
suggest placing the poll within a new message along with the extracted poll
results and sending the new message to the select group. App. Br. 7-8;
Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner’s reasons to
combine the cited prior art “is a conclusory statement that lacks an
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness.” Reply Br. 5-6.

ISSUES
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that the cited
prior art collectively teaches or suggests placing the poll within a new
message along with the extracted poll results and sending the new message
to the select group over the computer communications network?
2. Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

Appeal 2011-002185
Application 11/557,583

4
ANALYSIS
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1
as obvious. Namely, we are not persuaded that the cited prior art
collectively fails to teach the disputed limitations. Nor are we persuaded
that the Examiner’s reason to combine the cited prior art is not sufficiently
supported.
Appellants argue that Banerjee fails to teach creating a new message
including both the original poll and the poll results and sending the new
message to the select group. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Specifically,
Appellants contend “there is no teaching by Banerjee that a ‘new’ message
is created, which is separate and distinct from the ‘old’ message, that
contains both the poll and the extracted poll results.” Reply Br. 3. As
pointed out by the Examiner, however, Banerjee teaches a forum page that is
used to communicate messages, including for example a query (i.e., a poll)
and cumulative support (i.e., poll results), to the authorized forum users.
See Ans. 11-13 (citing Banerjee at [0080] and [0087]).
Banerjee also expressly identifies that “[a]ll communications are
logged in the forum logging database and displayed on the forum page in
state 716.” Ans. 12 (citing Banerjee at [0087]). In other words, Banerjee
updates the forum page to communicate a query to the forum participants
and then also updates the forum page, separately and distinctly, to
communicate the cumulative results of the query, as well as the previously
logged original query, to the forum participants. Appellants have failed to
present any persuasive evidence or argument as to why communicating a
message through a forum page would be outside the scope of the claimed
invention. We are therefore not persuaded that Banerjee fails to teach
Appeal 2011-002185
Application 11/557,583

5
creating a new message including both the original poll and the poll results
and sending the message to the select group.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness is not supported by an articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning. Appellants, however, fail to persuasively identify any error in
the Examiner’s reasoning and therefore have not rebutted the prima facie
case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1 as well
as claims 2-19, not separately argued with particularity.

CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-19.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
rwk