Ex Parte Sun et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 201814057582 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 14/057,582 10/18/2013 Qian Sun HW 81284532US15 7782 74365 7590 01/25/2018 Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC 17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75252 EXAMINER TRAN, NAM T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2452 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2018 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): uspatent@huawei.com docketing @ slatermatsil. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte QIAN SUN, YANG ZHAO, CHENGHUI PENG, LINYI TIAN, HONGQING BAO, and XUEFEI SONG Appeal 2017-007975 Application 14/057,582 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JUSTIN BUSCH, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-16,1 which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Claims 17 and 18 were cancelled. Advisory Act. 1. Appeal 2017-007975 Application 14/057,582 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to the realization of presence service in the fields of Internet and wireless communications. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for processing presence information, the method comprising: receiving presence information comprising presentity information, different values of a presence element, and classes corresponding to the values, wherein the classes are used to distinguish between different values of the presence element sent to different watchers; obtaining authentication configuration information of a presentity according to the presentity information; obtaining a right rule by resolving the authentication configuration information, the right rule comprising a correlation configured by the presentity between a watcher identity and a class of a group that the watcher identity pertains to; and sending a value of the presence element to a corresponding watcher according to a correlation between the class corresponding to the value in the presence information and the class derived from the right rule obtained from the authentication configuration information. References and Rejections Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yoakum (U.S. Patent No. 6658095 Bl; Dec. 2, 2003). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoakum and Laurila (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0053208 Al; Mar. 9, 2006). 2 Appeal 2017-007975 Application 14/057,582 Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoakum and Rosenberg {Presence Authorization Rules draft-ietf-simple-presence-rules-01 IETF, 10/25/2004). Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoakum and Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0248184 Al; Nov. 2, 2006). ANALYSIS Anticipation We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below.2 Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, and 15 I Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Yoakum discloses “receiving presence information comprising presentity information, different values of a presence element, and classes corresponding to the values, wherein the classes are used to distinguish between different values of the presence element sent to different watchers,” as recited in independent claim 1. See App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-4. In particular, Appellants contend: 2 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). 3 Appeal 2017-007975 Application 14/057,582 the presence system of Yoakum does not receive presence information comprising presentity information, different values of a presence element, and classes corresponding to the values, wherein the classes are used to distinguish between different values of the presence element sent to different watchers. Instead, according to the method of Yoakum, state information is transmitted alone to the presence system, and the presence system must inquire of the profile stored in presence system to evaluate the different presence values and classes associated with each different watcher. App. Br. 8; see also App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2^1. Appellants’ arguments are not directed to the Examiner’s specific mapping and finding. The Examiner finds Yoakum’s profile—not Yoakum’s state information as Appellants argue—contains the claimed “presence information.” See Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 3—4. The Examiner finds Yoakum’s profile contains the claimed “presence information,” which includes “presentity information, different values of a presence element, and classes corresponding to the values, wherein the classes are used to distinguish between different values of the presence element sent to different watchers” See Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 3—4. Further, the Examiner cites excerpts from Yoakum’s columns 3 and 7 for disclosing the disputed limitation (Final Act. 4-5), but Appellants ignore those cited portions in the Appeal Brief. In addition, Appellants do not argue the Specification specifically defines any of the claim elements in the disputed limitation. In fact, the Specification broadly provides non-limiting examples of “presentity,” “presence information,” and “watcher”: The presentity may be a natural person, or a non-natural person. In addition to basic information of a presentity such as online/offline state and communication mode, the presence 4 Appeal 2017-007975 Application 14/057,582 information may also include extended information such as mood, location, activity, and value-added service information provided by the non-natural person, such as information of weather forecast, station or television program and traffic movement. The watcher, i.e., a receiver of the presence information, may be the natural person or the non-natural person. Spec. ^ 4 (emphases added). Because Appellants’ arguments are not directed to the Examiner’s specific mapping and finding, Appellants fail to show Examiner error, especially since the Specification provides broad examples to illustrate the claimed terms. II Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Yoakum disclose “receiving presence information comprising presentity information, different values of a presence element, and classes corresponding to the values, wherein the classes are used to distinguish between different values of the presence element sent to different watchers,” and “sending a value of the presence element to a corresponding watcher according to a correlation between the class corresponding to the value in the presence information and the class derived from the right rule obtained from the authentication configuration information,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4-6. In particular, Appellants contend: As discussed above in connection with claim 1, according to the method of Yoakum a user profile in a presence system is configured with rules. Yoakum at Abstract. Upon receiving state information from a source, the presence system of Yoakum creates presence information to deliver to subscribers. 5 Appeal 2017-007975 Application 14/057,582 . . . Yoakum describes performing a comprehensive analysis of different state information received from one or more sources, rather than receiving different values of a presence element and then sending a value of a presence element to a watcher. App. Br. 8-9; see also Reply Br. 4-6. As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments are not directed to the Examiner’s specific mapping and finding. Further, the Examiner cites excerpts from Yoakum’s column 3 for disclosing the sending limitation (Final Act. 5-6), but Appellants ignore those cited portions in the Appeal Brief. In the Reply Brief, Appellants incorrectly characterize the Examiner’s response. See Reply Br. 4-5. Contrary to Appellants’ incorrect characterization, the Examiner finds “as disclosed by Yoakum in col. 3, In. 49-51 and 55-56, state information is received, which is used to receive different values of presence based on the class of the watcher(s), in order to send the different values of presence to the watcher(s).” Ans. 4-5 (emphasis added). Appellants fail to persuasively respond to such Examiner’s finding, and fail to show Examiner error. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 11 for similar reasons. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, and 15 (which depend from claims 1 and 11), as Appellants do not advance separate substantive arguments about those claims. 6 Appeal 2017-007975 Application 14/057,582 Regarding dependent claims 6 and 12, Appellants argue the cited portions of Yoakum do not disclose: determining whether class sub-elements contained in the presence information issued by the different presence sources have the same value or no class sub-element is contained; and if the class sub-elements contained in the presence information issued by the different presence sources have the same value or no class sub-element is contained, merging the presence information issued by the different presence sources, as recited in claim 6 and similarly recited in claim 12. See App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 9-10. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently mapped the claimed class sub-elements. See App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 9-10. In particular, Appellants’ following arguments are persuasive: claims of present invention clearly describe that “the classes are used to distinguish between different values of the presence element sent to different watchers” (see claim 1 of present invention) and “a class sub-element is configured in the presence element to record a class corresponding to a value of the presence element” (see claim 2 of the present invention). As such, neither “user” nor “office PC is in use” and “office telephone is on-hook” disclosed in Yoakum can [be] interpreted as “class sub-element.” Indeed, the “user” of Yoakum is the presentity, “office PC is in use” and “office telephone is on- hook” of Yoakum are each state information. Reply Br. 6. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 12. 7 Appeal 2017-007975 Application 14/057,582 Claim 16 Appellants argue claim 16 is allowable for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the disputed limitations of claim 1. See App. Br. 9. Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 16, because claim 16 does not recite “receiving presence information comprising presentity information, different values of a presence element, and classes corresponding to the values” or “receiving presence information comprising . . . different values of a presence element,. . . sending a value of the presence element to a corresponding watcher,” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. In any event, as discussed above, Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 1 are unpersuasive. Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16. Obviousness Claims 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 depend from independent claims 1 and 11. The Examiner cites additional references for the obviousness rejections of claims 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14. See Final Act. 13-17. Appellants argue claims 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 stand or fall with the independent claims that they depend from. See App. Br. 10-11. As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments about independent claims 1 and 11 are unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4, 8, 9, 13 and 14. 8 Appeal 2017-007975 Application 14/057,582 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8-11, and 13-16. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6 and 12. 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-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation