Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2016

11118679 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111118,679 0412912005
75930 7590 02/23/2016
LOZA & LOZA, LLP/Alcatel-Lucent
Jessica W. Smith, Esq.
305 North 2nd Avenue, #127
Upland, CA 91786
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fuming Wu
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.
139343 (ALU-1004) 9368
EXAMINER
CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2016 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):
jessica-pto@lozaip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FUMING WU and JACK JACHNER
Appeal2013-009327
Application 11/118,679
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JEREMY J.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 2, 9, 11-14, 18, 19, and 21. Claims 3-8, 10, 15-
17, and 20 have been canceled. Br. 18, 20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention manages user groups by using a presence server
that can subscribe user groups with members including presentities and
watchers, where each group has associated preference information set based
on individual preference information. See generally Abstract; Spec. 11-13;
Figs. 1-2.
Appeal2013-009327
Application 11/118,679
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A presence system for managing user groups, comprising:
a presence server for collecting and storing presence
information and preference information on a plurality of presentities,
wherein said presence information for each respective presentity
identifies availability of said respective presentity and wherein said
preference information for each said respective presentity identifies a
scope of said presence information provided to watchers of said
respective presentity;
wherein said presence server is capable of subscribing watcher
groups formed of two or more of said watchers, each respective
watcher group subscribing to receive said presence information
associated with only a respective single one of said presentities; and
wherein each said respective watcher group has group
preference information associated therewith set based on individual
preference information of each of said watchers in said respective
watcher group, each said group preference information filtering said
presence information of said respective single one of said presentities
provided to said watchers in said respective watcher group.
THE REJECTION1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 9, 11-14, 18, 19, and 21under35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Armstrong (US 7,221,658 Bl; May 22,
2007) and Leppanen (US 2005/0262198 Al; Nov. 24, 2005). Non-Final
Act. 5-15.2
1 Because the Examiner withdrew the§ 101 rejection (Ans. 3), that rejection
is not before us.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Non-Final Rejection mailed
August 30, 2012 ("Non-Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed January 29,
2013 ("Br."); and (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed April 24, 2013
("Ans.").
2
Appeal2013-009327
Application 11/118,679
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Armstrong's presence server (1) collects and
stores presence and preference information on plural presentities, and (2)
subscribes watcher groups ("aggregates") formed of plural watchers, where
each watcher group subscribes to receive presence information associated
with only a single presentity. Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 5. According to the
Examiner, Armstrong teaches group preference information associated with
a quorum condition that is used to determine watcher group settings. Non-
Final Act. 6; Ans. 5-8. This quorum condition is said to be based on the
opinions of group members and, therefore, is said to teach setting group
preference information based on individual preference information. Ans.
5-8.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Armstrong does not
disclose expressly the limitations of the last clause of claim 1, including each
group preference information filtering presence information of the respective
single one of the presentities provide the watchers in a group, the Examiner
cites Leppanen's presence information filtering functionality for teaching
this feature, albeit on an individual basis. Non-Final Act. 6; Ans. 6-7. The
Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to apply
Leppanen's filtering teachings to Armstrong's group-based functionality to
define such filters according to group preferences. Non-Final Act. 6-7; Ans.
6-7.
Appellants argue that Armstrong's watcher groups do not define
watcher group preference information, let alone that group preference
information is based on individual preference information of the watchers in
the group as claimed. Br. 14--16. Appellants add that Leppanen does not
3
Appeal2013-009327
Application 11/118,679
teach or suggest a watcher group subscribing to receive presence
information of a single presentity as clamed. Br. 15. Lastly, Appellants
contend that because Armstrong's quorum conditions are not determined
based on individual preference information of each watcher in a group, the
Examiner's motivation to combine Leppanen with Armstrong is deficient.
Br. 16.
ISSUES
(1) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Armstrong and Leppanen collectively would have taught or
suggested that each watcher group has associated group preference
information set based on individual preference information of each watcher
in the group, each group preference information filtering presence
information of a respective single presentity provided to watchers in the
group?
(2) Is the Examiner's combining the teachings of Armstrong and
Leppanen supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1
essentially for the reasons indicated by the Examiner. Non-Final Act. 5-7;
Ans. 4--9. The Examiner's reliance on Armstrong's quorum condition is
reasonable, for this condition may be used to determine factors related to
requests made by an "aggregate-" or group-based watching party (e.g., when
a request is made and what it should be). Ans. 5-8; Armstrong, col. 9, 1. 49
4
Appeal2013-009327
Application 11/118,679
- col. 10, 1. 2. As the Examiner explains, Armstrong at least suggests that a
quorum condition reflects the opinions of the group's members and,
therefore, at least suggests setting group preference information based on
individual preference information, namely group member opinions. Ans. 6.
We see no error in this position, for a quorum would constitute at least
a threshold number of group members (e.g., a majority) which, in at least
one scenario, may be every member of the group. See MERRIAM WEBSTER'S
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 960 (10th ed. 1993) (defining "quorum" as "a
select group" or, alternatively, as "the number (as a majority) of officers or
members of a body that when duly assembled is legally competent to
transact business"). Accord Ans. 8 (finding that a "quorum condition" in
Armstrong means that if enough members exceeding a threshold, namely a
majority or some other percentage or number of members, agree to make a
request, the action is taken). Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the
Examiner's finding that Armstrong's aggregate-based watcher groups can
subscribe to receive presence information associated with only a single
presentity as claimed. Non-Final Act. 5.
Appellants' contention that Leppanen allegedly does not teach
watchers subscribing with a presence server to become a watcher group to
receive presence information of a single presentity (Br. 15) is likewise
unavailing. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Leppanen uses
subscriptions to filter presence information for individuals (Ans. 6-7), we
see no reason why this teaching could not be applied to Armstrong's
aggregate-based system as the Examiner proposes to, among other things,
filter presentity presence information according to Armstrong's group
preference information. Non-Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 6-7. Appellants'
5
Appeal2013-009327
Application 11/118,679
arguments regarding Leppanen's individual shortcomings in this regard (Br.
15) do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the
cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F .2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Lastly, the Examiner's articulated reason to combine Armstrong and
Leppanen (Non-Final Act. 6-7) has rational underpinning to justify the
Examiner's obviousness conclusion. In short, the Examiner's proposed
combination uses prior art elements predictably according to their
established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 9, 11-14, 18, 19, and 21 not argued separately with
particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 9, 11-14, 18, 19,
and 21 under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 9, 11-14, 18, 19, and
21 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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
lv
6
Appeal2013-009327
Application 11/118,679
7