Ex Parte OGLE et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 201612818639 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/818,639 06/18/2010 DAVID M. OGLE 112978 7590 05/27/2016 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC 20283 State Road 7, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33498 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. CAM920100009US1_8150-0659 8204 EXAMINER BLOOMQUIST, KEITH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2016 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): ibmptomail@iplawpro.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID M. OGLE, BRYAND. OSENBACH, and JEREMY B. SUSSMAN Appeal2014-007111 Application 12/818,639 Technology Center 2100 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify International Business Machines, Incorporated as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal2014-007111 Application 12/818,639 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application relates to improving moderator control for managing delegates of an electronic communication session. Spec. ,-r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative (bracketed matter and emphasis added): 1. A method for an improved moderator control of a real time communication session comprising: within a communication system, defining the real time communication session comprising a plurality of participants and a session moderator, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of participants are geographically remote from each other and are communicatively linked via networked computing devices enabling participation within the real time communication session, and wherein the real time communication session is an event schedule via a calendaring application and the plurality of participants are scheduled to participate m the real time communication session; establishing the real time communication session wherein the moderator and at least some of the participants join the real time communication sess10n; during the real time communication session, [L 1] determining that at least one participant fails to join the real time communication session within a predetermined amount of time from the start of the real time communication session, the at least one participant being absent from the real time communication session; in response to determining that at least one participant is absent, ascertaining at least one delegate to substitute for the at least one participant 2 Appeal2014-007111 Application 12/818,639 that is absent, subject to an approval of the session moderator; and substituting the ascertained delegate for the at least one participant that is absent for the real time communication session. The Rejections 1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 14--19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Niazi (US 2010/0121666 Al; publ. May 13, 2010) and Lingafelt (US 2009/0063639 Al; publ. Mar. 5, 2009). 2. Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) overNiazi, Lingafelt, and Sarkar (US 2008/0109517 Al; publ. May 8, 2008). 3. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Niazi, Lingafelt, and Helbling (US 2008/0159503 Al; publ. July 3, 2008). ANALYSIS We have considered the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Examiner's Answer thereto. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Rather, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We further emphasize the following. Rejection No. 1: Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 14-19 The Examiner relies on Lingafelt as teaching or suggesting limitation L 1. Final Act. 4. Appellants contend: (i) the Examiner errs in this finding because "[t ]here is no teaching in Lingafelt that the joining of a delegate 3 Appeal2014-007111 Application 12/818,639 occurs after the collaboration has begun" and (ii) an ordinarily-skilled artisan "would not necessarily combine" Niazi and Lingafelt because "Niazi schedules events for a future time while Lingafelt determines who is presently available for a collaboration event." Br. 12.2 Regarding Appellants' first argument, the Examiner elaborates that Lingafelt: [0025] states that a dynamic alteration of collaboration invitees includes inviting a backup "if the primary invitee does not join the IM collaboration in a predefined amount of time following an invitation." [0057] additionally states that a backup invitee in an invitation is the "Identity of the person or group designated to be invited if the primary invitee . . . does not join the IM collaboration within the corresponding time in the Wait Time field." Ans. 18. Appellants fail to rebut these findings. Therefore, on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner errs in finding Lingafelt teaches or suggests limitation L 1. Regarding Appellants' second argument, the Examiner elaborates: Lingafelt states at [0002] that the reference cures deficiencies in the prior art regarding detecting a user's unavailability, in that prior systems rely on limited information. As Niazi is likewise concerned with establishing collaboration sessions and a collaborator's availability for such, a system that relies on more robust information when determining whether to invite an attendee's delegate extends the usefulness of such a system to a moderator who initiates communication sessions, regardless of 2 Appellants fail to number the pages of the Appeal Brief. We refer to the Appeal Brief herein as if numbered sequentially beginning with the cover. 4 Appeal2014-007111 Application 12/818,639 whether they are impromptu or scheduled ahead of time. Ans. 20. Appellants fail to rebut these findings. Therefore, on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner errs in finding a "motivation for combining" Niazi and Lingafelt. See Br. 12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. Appellants present no further arguments on claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 14--19. Br. 13. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 14--19. Rejection No. 2: Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 20 Claim 3 recites in relevant part, "generating a suitability score for a plurality of delegates, wherein the suitability score indicates a level of suitability of a delegate from the plurality of delegates for substituting the one participant; and prioritizing the plurality of delegates by the suitability score." The Examiner relies on Sarkar as teaching or suggesting these limitations. Final Act. 10. Appellants contend: Now here does Sarkar talk about a suitability score indicating a level of suitability of a delegate from the plurality of delegates. In fact, Sarkar cannot teach the claimed limitation because Sarkar teaches that a preference hierarchy of delegates is created by the user and the filtering algorithm is then applied on the delegates based on the preference hierarchy, while the claimed limitation discloses that a suitability score for the delegates is generated and the delegates are then prioritized based on the generated suitability score. 5 Appeal2014-007111 Application 12/818,639 Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we find Appellants have not defined in the claims or the Specification the term "suitability score." We apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Where, as here, the Specification does not explicitly define a term, the term should be given its ordinary meaning. E- Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In light of these principles, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Sarkar's establishment of criteria and subsequent ranking of delegates based on the criteria, at minimum, suggests the claimed generating a suitability score and prioritizing of delegates based on the score. Ans. 20-22. Appellants' argument to the contrary reduces to an assertion that the words "suitability score" do not appear verbatim in the reference. Such a showing is not required under the law of obviousness. Rather, a determination of obviousness does not require the claimed invention to be expressly suggested by any one or all of the references. See e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Claim 20 recites in relevant part, "wherein the graphical user interface is configured for enabling the second participant to initiate the performance of identifying and contacting the delegate." The Examiner relies on Sarkar as teaching or suggesting these limitations. Final Act. 15. In particular, the Examiner finds Sarkar "describes that the meeting organizer is able to intervene and set delegate polic[i]es, meaning the performance of identifying 6 Appeal2014-007111 Application 12/818,639 and contacting a delegate can be done by the moderator." Id. (citing Sarkar i-f 19). Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting this claim because the claimed Br. 16. second participant is different from the first participant that is absent and the moderator of the real time communication session. Nowhere does Sarkar teach that a second person, i.e., other than the participant and the moderator, is enabled to perform the identification of the delegate and also contact the delegate. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 20 and its parent claims 16 and 17 do not require the claimed second participant to be mutually- exclusive of the claimed moderator. As the Examiner correctly observes, "there is nothing in the claim that precludes the 'second participant' from being the moderator." Ans. 24. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3 and 20. Appellants present no further arguments on claims 4, 6, 7, and 10. Br. 16. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4, 6, 7, and 10. Rejection No. 3: Claims 12 and 13 Claim 13 recites in relevant part, calling a phone number associated with the ascertained delegate to establish a telephony connection with the ascertained delegate, wherein the session moderator requests the ascertained delegate to join the conference call when the ascertained delegate indicates an agreement to join 7 Appeal2014-007111 Application 12/818,639 the conference call, connecting the ascertained delegate to the conference call. The Examiner relies on Niazi and Helbling collectively as teaching or suggesting these limitations. Final Act. 17. In particular, the Examiner finds, "Niazi teaches that a delegate can be contacted and asked to join a communication session, as [0060] describes delegates being contacted to participate in a session." Id. The Examiner relies on Helbling as teaching or suggesting the remainder of the disputed limitations. Id. Appellants contend the Examiner errs because "[ n ]ow here does Helbling teach that a delegate's phone number is called to request the delegate to attend an ongoing conference call in place of an absent participant. Helbling is merely concerned about re-establishing communication with a participant when the participant either voluntarily or unknowingly disconnects from the conference call." Br. 15. The Examiner elaborates, As Niazi and Lingafelt both teach, a user determined to be unavailable may cause for delegate contact information to be used in trying to establish a delegate to substitute for the original participant, including during a telephone conference. Helbling merely provides a specific teaching that establishing contact may be done while a participant's lack of availability happens during the call. Ans. 23. Appellants do not rebut these findings. On the record before us, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because Appellants argue the references individually. The Examiner relies on Niazi-not Helbing-as teaching or suggesting requesting the delegate to attend an ongoing conference call in place of an absent participant. Final Act. 1 7; Ans. 23. 8 Appeal2014-007111 Application 12/818,639 The Examiner relies on Helbling for the further teaching that a delegate may be contacted by calling a phone number during the conference call. Final Act. 17; Ans. 23. Where, as here, a rejection is based on a combination of references, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 13. Appellants present no further arguments on claim 12. Br. 23. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 12. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation