Ex Parte Yoakum

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 20, 2014

11253941 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN H. YOAKUM
____________

Appeal 2012-0069621
Application 11/253,9412
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MICHAEL W. KIM, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–8 and 10–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134 and 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Our decision refers to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Nov. 9,
2011), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 21, 2011), and the Final
Office Action (“Final Action,” mailed June 21, 2011).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Avaya, Incorporated of
Basking Ridge, New Jersey (Br. 2).
Appeal 2012-006962
Application 11/253,941

2
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a system and method for determining
the presence and availability of a monitored person for communication
based on local time information (Spec. ¶¶ 6, 35).
Claims 1, 11, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining local time information associated with a
location of a monitored person;
evaluating the local time information to determine an
availability of the monitored person for communications;
creating presence information for the monitored person
based on the local time information that includes the
availability of the monitored person for communications; and
providing, through a communication network, the
presence information that includes the availability of the
monitored person for communications to a subscribing entity.

Br. 14, Claims App.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Jorasch US 2003/0002642 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Salomaki US 2003/0065788 A1 Apr. 3, 2003
Kumar US 2004/0203848 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Hinz US 2005/0070282 A1 Mar. 31, 2005
Wu US 2006/0167977 A1 July 27, 2006

Rejections on Appeal
1) Claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 11–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Salomaki and Jorasch;
2) Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Salomaki, Jorasch, and Kumar;
Appeal 2012-006962
Application 11/253,941

3
3) Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Salomaki, Jorasch, and Wu; and
4) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Salomaki, Jorasch, and Hinz.3

OPINION
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 11–21
Appellant groups together independent claims 1, 11, and 19, and
claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 12–18, 20, and 21, which depend respectively therefrom
(Br. 9–11). We select claim 1 as representative and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and
11–21 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellant argues that the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 is
deficient because the Examiner has not defined the level of ordinary skill in
the art (Br. 9–10). The Examiner states that the prior art provides evidence
as to the level of ordinary skill, and that defining the complete state of the art
at the time of the invention is not necessary (Ans. 13).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner that the prior art reflects the level of skill in the art. The Examiner
has made detailed factual findings as to the contents of the prior art (Ans. 5–
12). Appellant has not shown that further evidence is necessary or that it
would have changed the result. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350,

3 On pages 4 and 12 of the Answer and on page 10 of the Final Action, Hinz
is listed as US 2005/0135429, whereas Hinz is listed as US 2005/0070282
on the Examiner’s Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) dated January 14,
2011. The rejection refers to paragraph 13, lines 7–9, of Hinz. This is a
pinpoint citation of Hinz (US 2005/0070282). Appellant does not dispute
the citation of Hinz.
Appeal 2012-006962
Application 11/253,941

4
1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc.,
807 F.2d 955, 963 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided factual findings
in support of the combination of references, i.e., Salomaki and Jorasch, in
the rejection of claim 1 (Br. 10–11). The Examiner’s stated rationale for
combining is as follows: use local time information to more accurately
determine the availability of a person (Ans. 14). The Examiner states that
paragraph 108 of Jorasch provides evidence to support this rationale, i.e.,
paragraph 108 of Jorasch teaches that the status of the monitored party based
on local time can be used to block calls after a certain time when the
monitored party is likely asleep (Ans. 14; see also id. at 5–12).
We agree with the Examiner. In particular, we note that Jorasch
(¶ 108) discloses that a status may indicate the local time and may be used to
block calls after 11:00 PM local time of the monitored party, even if the
monitored party has traveled to a different time zone. We conclude that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of
Appellant’s invention to combine Salomaki and Jorasch for the reasons
stated by the Examiner.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 11–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Salomaki and Jorasch.

Claims 4, 7, 8, and 10
Claims 4, 7, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Salomaki and Jorasch and further in view of one of
Kumar, Wu, and Hinz. Appellant makes similar arguments as to the
rejections of claims 4, 7, 8, and 10 as for the rejection of claim 1 (Br. 11–
Appeal 2012-006962
Application 11/253,941

5
12). We sustain the rejections of claims 4, 7, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Salomaki and Jorasch and further in view of
one of Kumar, Wu, and Hinz, for similar reasons as for claim 1, above.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–8 and 10–21 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh