Ex Parte Tiwari et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 9, 2016

12951231 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/951,231 11/22/2010
93379 7590
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
05/11/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SunilKumar P. Tiwari
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.
648.0006 9363
EXAMINER
ZUBER!, MOHAMMED H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2016 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):
sarah@setterroche.com
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNILKUMAR P. TIW ARI and
GAURAVSAGARTADELKAR
Appeal2014-006335 1
Application 12/951,231
Technology Center 2100
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1--4, 7-13, and 16-19. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below with a key disputed limitation
emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for versioning comprising:
receiving through a user interface a command to compose
a primary communication;
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Avaya, Inc. App. Br. 1
2 Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, and 20 are canceled. App. Br. 14 (Claims App'x).
Appeal2014-006335
Application 12/951,231
receiving through the user interface a command to include
a secondary communication with the primary communication;
determining in a processing system a version of the
secondary communication in a processing system;
transferring through a communication interface the
primary communication, the secondary communication, and the
version from a sending device for delivery to and display by a
recipient device;
determining in the processing system an initial version for
the secondary communication from the version;
in response to changes made to the secondary
communication, determining in the processing system an
updated version for the secondary communication and an extent
of the changes made to the secondary communication;
selecting a version field in the processing system for
updating based on the extent of the changes made to the
secondary communication in the processing system;
updating the version in the processing system by updating
the selected version field, wherein the version includes two or
more version fields; and
transferring through the communication interface another
primary communication, the secondary communication, and the
updated version from the recipient device for delivery to and
display by the sending device.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mas sand
Kieselbach et al.
US 7,895,276 B2 Feb. 22, 2011
US 2007/0143425 Al June 21, 2007
Claims 1--4, 7, 9-13, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C § 102(a) as being anticipated by Kieselbach. 3 Final Act. 4--18.
3 The Final Office Action rejects claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 as anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Kieselbach. Final Act. 4. However, claims 5,
2
Appeal2014-006335
Application 12/951,231
Claims 8 and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kieselbach in view of Massand. Final Act. 18-20.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner cites Figures 1 and 2, as well as paragraphs 3, 9-11,
and 20-29 of Kieselbach as disclosing the limitations recited independent
claims 1, 10, and 19. Final Act. 4---6 and 8-9; see also Ans. 21. Kieselbach
describes a messaging interface in which messages with attached documents
are transmitted from a first user to one or more other recipient users, and in
which each recipient user has a document library containing multiple
versions of the attached documents. See Kieselbach, Abstract, i-fi-1 23-29.
With respect to the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds:
Kieselbach teaches document A Version 1.0 22 is shown
associated with a message thread identifier 23 and a message
identifier 24, Document A Version 1.1 25 is shown associated
with a message thread identifier 26 and a message identifier 27
(paragraph 23) which is equivalent to the claimed two or more
version fields.
Ans. 21; see also Final Act. 8 citing Kieselbach i-fi-128, 29.
Appellants argue that Kieselbach fails to disclose "the version
includes two or more version fields, and that one of these fields is selected
for updating based on the extent of the changes made to the secondary
communication in the processing system." App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br.
3--4.
14, and 20 were canceled prior to mailing of the Final Office Action (see id.
at 2) and claims 6 and 15 were canceled in an amendment entered after
mailing of the Final Office Action (see Advisory Act. 1, §§ 7, 14).
3
Appeal2014-006335
Application 12/951,231
We find Appellants' argument persuasive. The Examiner's finding
that Kieselbach discloses the disputed limitation is not supported by
sufficient evidence of record. We agree that the cited portions of Kieselbach
fail to disclose any "selecting" among version fields in incrementing
document versions.
Rather, in the cited portions of paragraphs 28 and 29, Kieselbach
discloses determining whether the document attached to a message has been
modified since it was last stored in the personal document library and if so,
creating a new version. Kieselbach also discloses:
In the illustrative personal document library 16 of FIG. 1,
multiple versions of Document A are shown associated with
corresponding message thread identifiers and message
identifiers. For example, Document A Version 1.0 22 is shown
associated with a message thread identifier 23 and a message
identifier 24, Document A Version 1.1 25 is shown associated
with a message thread identifier 26 and a message identifier 27,
Document A Version 1.1.1 is shown associated with a message
thread identifier 29 and a message identifier 30, and Document
A Version 1.1.2 31 is shown associated with a message thread
identifier 32 and a message identifier 33. In this way, each
version of each document stored in the may be stored and
retrieved in association with an email message thread and email
message.
Kieselbach i-f 23 (emphasis added). Although Kieselbach discloses that
multiple versions of Document A can be stored within a personal document
library and that the versions of Document A are incremented, the record
before us does not indicate that the Examiner finds "selecting" one of the
three version fields to be inherent in the incrementing of Document A's
version number. See id. Moreover, the cited teachings of Kieselbach
4
Appeal2014-006335
Application 12/951,231
discussed above do not disclose a basis upon which one of the three version
fields is selected.
For the forgoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner
erred in finding that Kieselbach discloses the disputed limitation recited in
claim 1, the commensurate limitations of claims 10 and 19, and the
limitations recited in claims 2--4, 7, 9, 11-13, 16, and 18, which depend from
claims 1, 10, and 19. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-
4, 7, 9-13, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a).
Claims 8 and 17 were rejected over the combination of Kieselbach
and Massand. As the Examiner did not find that Massand teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation, we reach the same decision with respect to
claims 8 and 17 as we reach with respect to claims 1 and 10, from which
they depend, for substantially similar reasons. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 7-13, and 16-19 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5