Ex Parte Reddy K V

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2016

13226331 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/226,331 09/06/2011
15093 7590 06/14/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Narasimha REDDY KV
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.
142021 (899659) 3446
EXAMINER
DAILEY, THOMAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcomins t@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NARASIMHA REDDY KV
Appeal2014-007342
Application 13/226,331
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHN F. HORVATH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "a synchronization operation based on a
filter tag, such as an email subject." Specification 2.
Appeal2014-007342
Application 13/226,331
Representative Claim
1. A method performed by a processing system, the method
compnsmg:
synchronizing a user device with an email server to update
a state of a user's email environment on a user device with a state
stored on the email server; and
as part of the synchronizing receiving a synchronization
command that includes a filter tag as a parameter from a user
device of a user, and during the synchronizing providing only a
first set of items for the user that include the filter tag to the user
device in response to the synchronization command and the
parameter.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as
being anticipated by Xu (US Patent Application Publication Number
2011/0295889 Al; published December 1, 2011). Final Rejection 4--9.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Xu. Final Rejection 9-10.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 23, 2013), the Reply Brief
(June 18, 2014), the Answer (mailed April 18, 2014) and the Final Rejection
(mailed September 5, 2013) for the respective details. We have considered
in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
2
Appeal2014-007342
Application 13/226,331
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
35 U.S.C. §102(e) rejection
Appellant states that "Xu discloses "enhanced conversation and
category search features" and further "describes an email system including
'email synchronization server(s) [that] may be configured to synchronize
email messages between the mobile wireless communications devices and
respective mailboxes."
Appeal Brief 5.
The Examiner finds Xu anticipates the claimed invention by teaching
that an email search request is translated in the form of a category ID
(paragraph 24), where the category ID is equivalent to the claimed filter tag
in claim 1. Final Rejection 4.
Appellant argues, "just because an email synchronization server
implements a search function which utilizes the category ID does not
disclose that the synchronization operations utilize the category ID as recited
in various respects in Appellant's claims." Appeal Brief 5. Appellant
further argues that "the category ID is not described as being included in the
synchronization command," and "[a]lthough Xu describes the server is
configured to synchronize email messages - this is listed as a separate
operation from 'translate an email search request in the form of at least one
of a conversation ID and a category ID."' Appeal Brief 6.
Xu discloses, in Figure 1, an email synchronization server that
"Synchronize[s] email messages between [a] given mobile device and
respective mailbox so that [the] given mobile device stores [a] subset of
3
Appeal2014-007342
Application 13/226,331
email messages from among a full set of email messages from a given
conversation." Xu further teaches in paragraph [0048]:
With respect to the search commands generated by the mobile
devices 36', a conversation ID may be specified to constrain the
search request to a single conversation or thread from the given
mailbox 34'. Moreover, category IDs may be specified to
constrain the search request to email messages that have all of
the given categories applied in the given mailbox 34'.
We do not find Appellant's persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner's findings that Xu's "search command is in fact a synchronization
command as it simply synchronizes the retrieved emails from the remote
mailbox with emails stored on the mobile device." Answer 5. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1, as well as,
dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 18-20 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief
6, 11, and 12.
Appellant argues that claim 4 is allowable over Xu because, "there is
no disclosure of receiving the synchronization command that includes the
filter tag." Appeal Brief 7. We do not find Appellant's argument
persuasive because claim 4 recites, "receiving the synchronization command
that includes the filter tag from a communications network" and we agree
with the Examiner's findings that Xu discloses a filter tag in the form of the
category IDs included in the search command performed within a
communications network during synchronization. Final Rejection 5; see
Xu's Figure 1. Therefore we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claim 4.
Appellant argues that claim 6 is patentable over Xu because the
Examiner erred in relying on Xu' s Figure 19, block 110, which "has nothing
4
Appeal2014-007342
Application 13/226,331
to do with the claim recitations continue processing the synchronization
operations with the filter tag until another filter tag is received." Appeal
Brief7. We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive because the
Examiner relied upon several other components shown in Figure 19,
including the main processor 102 (See Final Rejection 6) to meet claim 6's
"continue processing" limitation. (See also Xu's paragraph 48). Appellant
has failed to address the Examiner's findings in their entirety. Therefore we
sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 6, as well as,
dependent claims 7, 9, and 10 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 8.
Appellant argues that claim 8 is patentable over Xu because:
The rejection (and Response to Arguments) alleges that Xu
discloses [a] "command is sent by the Gmail server to the email
synchronization server 40 when a user adds categories to one or
more conversations via the Gmail UI [user interface], for
example para. [0042]." But "this command" described in para.
[0042] is the "conversation category update command" which
"causes the Gmail server to apply (or remove) the specified
category (or multiple categories) to all messages in the given
conversation" (para. [0041 ]). These category updates are not the
filter tag, but rather "conversation delete and read or unread
commands discussed above." Para. [0042].
Appeal Brief 8.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive because Xu further
discloses in paragraph [0041], "[a]s similarly described above, this
command is sent by the mobile device 36 to the email synchronization
server 40 when a user adds categories to one or more conversations on the
mobile device." Therefore Xu utilizes the categories edits/updates as filter
tags (parameter) in the same manner as the invention. Consequently, we
sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 8.
5
Appeal2014-007342
Application 13/226,331
We also sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 11-15
for the same reasons provided for claims 1, 4, 6, and 8. See Appeal Brief 8-
9.
Appellant argues that claim 16 is patentable over Xu because "As
explained in the argument for claim 1, Xu describes two separate functions"
and therefore "Xu is describing translating an email request search request ..
. but not the actual claim recitation of synchronizing ... based on the filter
tag." Appeal Brief 10. We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive
because we agree with the Examiner's findings that a search command is a
synchronization command based upon filter tags or parameters in the same
manner as Appellant's invention. See Final Rejection 4, 5 and 9. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 16.
35 U.S.C. §103(a) rejection
Appellant argues that claim 17 is patentable over Xu because "Xu
fails to disclose use of a filter tag during the synchronizing" and therefore "it
follows that Xu does not fairly teach displaying a message on the user device
when no emails matching the filter tag are found during the
synchronizing." Appeal Brief 12. We do not find Appellant's argument
persuasive because we agreed with the Examiner's findings that Xu teaches
the use of filter tags in the same manner as the claimed invention.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 17.
DECISION
The Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-20 is
affirmed.
6
Appeal2014-007342
Application 13/226,331
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 17 is atlirmed.
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
7