Ex Parte T. et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 21, 201613652641 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/652,641 10/16/2012 Satyanarayana T. 22917 7590 11/23/2016 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. IP Law Docketing 500 W. Monroe 43rd Floor Chicago, IL 60661 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. CM15389 3996 EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2444 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/23/2016 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): USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SATYANARA YANA T., ANEES ABDULKADER ANAKKOT, and TYRONE D. BEKIARES Appeal2016-001558 Application 13/652,641 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-001558 Application 13/652,641 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 11 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 11. A method for determining a synchronization with respect to multiple presence service subscriptions, the method compnsmg: maintaining multiple subscriptions associated with a Watcher; receiving a subscription information consolidated status update (SICSU) request from a user terminal associated with the Watcher, wherein the SICSU request requests a provision of a consolidated status update of multiple subscriptions associated with the Watcher; and in response to receiving the SICSU request, conveying a SICSU notification comprising a first SICSU values, wherein each SIC SU value of the SIC SU values indicate a status of multiple subscriptions associated with the Watcher. Examiner's Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sekaran et al. (US 7,536,481 B2; May 19, 2009). 1 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 22. Except for our ultimate decision, this claim is not discussed further herein. 2 Appeal 2016-001558 Application 13/652,641 The Examiner rejected claims 1--4 and 12-15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) the combination of Sekaran and Laflamme et al. (US 2008/0214170 Al; Sept. 4, 2008). 2 The Examiner rejected dependent claims 5-10 and 16-21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) the combination of Sekaran, Laflamme, and Ben-Ezra et al. (US 7,814,051 B2; Oct. 12, 2010). 3 Appellants ' Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 because: [Sekaran] fails to teach or otherwise suggest a single message is sent/received to send/receive status information of multiple subscriptions. App Br. 6. Analysis of Sekaran reveals that this reference fails to teach or otherwise suggest that a single message is sent/received to send/receive status information of multiple subscriptions. This is illustrated in columns 7 and 8 of Sekaran, where multiple messages need to be sent to receive presence information for multiple devices. App Br. 7. 2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 1--4 and 12-15. Rather, Appellants merely repeat (App. Br. 8) for these claims the arguments directed to claim 11. Therefore, the rejections of these claims tum on our decision as to the underlying § 102 rejection of claim 11, and are not further addressed herein. 3 No arguments are presented for claims 5-10 and 16-21. Therefore, the rejections of these claims tum on our decision as to the underlying § 102 rejection, and are not further addressed herein. 3 Appeal 2016-001558 Application 13/652,641 Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 11 as being anticipated because Sekaran fails to disclose the argued limitations? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred. As to Appellants' above contention 1, we agree with Appellants that Sekaran fails to teach or suggest a consolidated status update of multiple subscriptions wherein each SI CSU value of the SI CSU values indicate a status of multiple subscriptions. Sekaran, instead, discloses the prior art method of a separate status update for each subscription. See Sekaran Fig. 7. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11 and 22 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and 12-21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (3) On this record, claims 1-22 have not been shown to be unpatentable. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22 are reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation