Ex Parte Wassersug et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 18, 201613624163 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/624, 163 09/21/2012 35811 7590 02/22/2016 IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US) ONE LIBERTY PLACE 1650 MARKET ST, SUITE 4900 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mark Wassersug 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. ICE-l l-1290R 3662 EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2445 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2016 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): pto. phil@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK W ASSERSUG, CHARLES VICE, and MA YUR KAP ANI Appeal2014-004536 Application 13/624,163 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-30, which constitute all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. INVENTION Appellants' disclosed invention relates generally to messaging, and more particularly to evaluating message content for purposes of discouraging inefficient and excessive messaging. (Spec. i-f 2.) Appeal2014-004536 Application 13/624,163 Claim 1, which is representative, reads as follows: 1. A method of evaluating messaging, the method executing on hardware and comprising: receiving, via at least one server device, one or more messages; and said at least one server device processing at least one of the one or more messages by performing the steps of: grading content included in said at least one message; applying a weighting factor to said at least one message according to said grading, thereby determining a weighted message count for said at least one message; aggregating the weighted message count for said at least one message; and initiating an action if the aggregated \veighted message count meets or exceeds a predetermined count threshold, said action comprising at least one of determining a financial penalty, modifying a messaging cost and modifying messaging privileges. REFERENCE The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Wang US 2006/0031507 Al Feb.9,2006 2 Appeal2014-004536 Application 13/624,163 REJECTION APPEALED Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wang. (Final Act. 2.) ISSUES Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Wang discloses the following limitations of claim 1: "grading content included in said at least one message"; "applying a weighting factor ... according to said grading"; and "initiating an action ... comprising at least one of ... modifying messaging privileges." (App. Br. 3-8.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred, and we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting the pending claims. Claim 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Wang discloses the limitations recited in claim 1 of "grading content included in said at least one message" and "applying a weighting factor ... according to said grading." (App. Br. 7.) Appellants acknowledge that Wang discloses weighting messages based on message size. (Id. at 8.) They contend, however, that weighting by message size does not satisfy the grading and applying-a-weighting-factor limitations of claim 1 because message size is completely independent of and unrelated to message content. (App. Br. 7.) 3 Appeal2014-004536 Application 13/624,163 We disagree. Giving the term "content" its broadest reasonable interpretation, message size measures how much content is in a message, which is a characteristic of that content. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Wang discloses the grading and applying-a-weighting-factor limitations of claim 1, and we adopt the Examiner's findings regarding those limitations. (See Ans. 2-3, citing Wang Figs. 3, 3A, and 4, iTiT 37, 44.) Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Wang discloses the limitation recited in claim 1 of "initiating an action .... " (App. Br. 8.) Appellants acknowledge that Wang describes randomly or completely rejecting a user's messages. (Id.) Appellants argue, however, that randomly or completely rejecting a user's messages does not constitute any of the actions recited in claim 1. (Id.) We disagree. Claim 1 recites the action of "modifying messaging privileges." (See claim 1.) Giving that recitation its broadest reasonable interpretation, completely rejecting a user's messages would modify a user's messaging privileges. Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Wang discloses the "initiating an action" limitation of claim 1, and we adopt the Examiner's findings regarding this limitation. (Ans. 4-5, citing Wang Fig. 6, which is discussed at Wang iTiT 52-70.) Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-30 Appellants argue that claims 2-30 are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. (App. Br. 8.) Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons as for claim 1. 4 Appeal2014-004536 Application 13/624,163 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-30 is affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED JRG 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation