Ex Parte Wassersug et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2016

13624163 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016)

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