Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13613364 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/613,364 09/13/2012
82313 7590 09/30/2016
Conley Rose - BlackBerry Files
Attn: J. Robert Brown
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher D. Smith
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.
10745-US-CNT3
4214-63213
CONFIRMATION NO.
2394
EXAMINER
MADAMBA, GLENFORD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
ConleyRoseReporting@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER D. SMITH, DAVID P. KRUIS,
ROBERT J. SNOW, SNEZANA VISNJIC-OBUCINA,
ALBERT LEE, ARSEL MANUEL,
and DIANA G. VITORINO
Appeal2015-005437
Application 13/613,364
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 21--40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention "relates generally to the field of electronic mail
systems. More particularly, the patent document describes a system and
method for integrating electronic mail accounts." Spec. 1, 11. 11-13.
Appeal2015-005437
Application 13/613,364
Claim 21 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
21. A polling agent, for use with a preferred email service
configured to send and receive email messages for a primary
email account and with a secondary email service configured to
send and receive email messages for a secondary email account,
and stored on a nontransitory computer readable medium and
executable by at least one computing device, configured to:
communicate over a wide area network with the preferred
email service and with the secondary email service to retrieve,
from the secondary email service, email messages that have been
addressed to and stored in the secondary email account and to
forward the retrieved messages to the primary email account.
THE REJECTIONS 1
The Examiner rejected claims 21-23, 25-33, and 35--40 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Hoglund (US 2002/0026513 Al;
Feb. 28, 2002). Final Act. 11-27.2
The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hoglund and Hickman (US 5,956,486; Sept. 21, 1999).
Final Act. 27-29.
1 We note that the Final Action includes a nonstatutory double patenting
rejection of claims 21--40. See Final Act. 2-3. However, we understand this
rejection to be withdrawn given the approved electronic terminal disclaimer.
See Electronic Terminal Disclaimer, Ser. No. 13/613,364, filed Oct. 1, 2013
(approved Oct. 1, 2013).
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to ( 1) the Final Action mailed Aug. 7,
2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed Apr. 11, 2014 ("App. Br.");
(3) the Examiner's Answer mailed Aug. 1, 2014 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply
Brief filed Apr. 16, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2015-005437
Application 13/613,364
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION EJECTION BASED ON HOGLUND
Claims 21-23, 25-33, and 35--40
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 21-23, 25-33, and 35--40 as anticipated by
Hoglund.
Appellants contend that Hoglund fails to disclose a polling agent that
retrieves email messages that have been addressed to and stored in a
secondary email account and forwards those messages to a primary email
account, as required by the claims 21, 31, and 40. App. Br. 7-8. According
to Appellants, Hoglund only discloses a polled embodiment where a wireless
device is an extension of a desktop email account, or in other words there are
not two separate email accounts. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Further,
Appellants assert that Hoglund's real-time embodiment describes that a
wireless device has a primary email account and then a separate secondary
desktop email account but there is no disclosure of forwarding. App. Br. 7;
Reply Br 3.
We find this argument unpersuasive. In particular, Hoglund
describes, for example,
providing an integrated or combination wireless messaging
service that allows users to transmit and/or receive e-mail and/or
other messages on a real time basis or substantially real time
basis via an e-mail or other account associated with a wireless
communications device. The present invention also
advantageously and optionally allows users to utilize the wireless
communications device to check messages stored within, for
example, a separate POP or IMAP e-mail or data account.
Hoglund i-f 30; Ans. 26. In other words, Hoglund includes both real-time and
polled delivery. Further, Hoglund explains,
3
Appeal2015-005437
Application 13/613,364
The agent gateways and/or messenger gateways thus allow a
single user to hold more than one e-mail account, and access each
of those accounts via a single wireless device, although other
standard methods are additionally and optionally provided as
well. For example, a user may have a personal and/or corporate
POP and/or IMAP based account and a second account
associated with the Motient8M network having an @2way.net
domain name. The combined system is capable of routing
messages from the personal account to the network account.
Hoglund i-f 35 (emphasis added). As such, a skilled artisan would understand
that an additional feature of Hoglund's system is that it may route or forward
messages between the personal and network accounts.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we sustain the rejection of claims 21-23, 25-33, and 35--40 as anticipated by
Hoglund.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON HOGLUND AND HICKMAN
Claims 24 and 34
Appellants do not separately argue patentability for dependent claims
24 and 34 and, instead, rely on the arguments presented for claims 21, 31,
and 40. See App. Br. 8. For the reasons discussed above, we find these
arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 24 and 34 as unpatentable over the combination of Hoglund and
Hickman.
4
Appeal2015-005437
Application 13/613,364
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 21--40.
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
5