Facebook, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 29, 202014328509 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/328,509 07/10/2014 Dale W. Malik 19487.370.4.1 8611 107193 7590 05/29/2020 Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook 1010 North 500 East Suite 210 North Salt Lake, UT 84054 EXAMINER OSMAN BILAL AHME, AFAF ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3682 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2020 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): docketing@kjpip.com gjolley@kjpip.com ljohnson@kjpip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DALE W. MALIK Appeal 2020-001649 Application 14/328,509 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject Claims 1–20. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-001649 Application 14/328,509 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to facilitating a communication between users. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: receiving, from a first client device associated with a first user, a communication request for a first user to communicate with a second user associated with a second client device, the communication request received based on the first user selecting a first option within a communication graphical user interface on the first client device associated with the first user; accessing, based on receiving the communication request, user profile information for the second user to determine one or more communication types that are available on the second client device associated with the second user; comparing, by at least one processor, user profile information for the first user to the user profile information for the second user to determine a communication type from the one or more communication types based on the communication type being available on the first client device associated with the first user; automatically providing, within the communication graphical user interface of the first client device and based on the determined communication type, a communication template that utilizes the determined communication type that is available on the first client device and the second client device; and facilitating a communication between the first client device and the second client device using the determined communication type. Appeal 2020-001649 Application 14/328,509 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Bauer et al. US 6,385,311 B1 May 7, 2002 Ram et al. US 6,625,258 B1 Sept. 23, 2003 Schnarel et al. US 7,225,409 B1 May 29, 2007 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1–4, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ram in view of Bauer. Claims 5, 9, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ram in view of Bauer in further view of Schnarel. OPINION Appellant argues Claims 1–20 as a group. We select Claim 1 and decide the appeal with respect to Claim 1 as the illustrative claim. Independent Claims 12 and 19 contain similar limitations. Appellant argues that Ram does not teach or suggest “a communication template that utilizes the determined communication type.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant contends that Ram discloses reach lists that allow users to be contacted through a routing process, but that “Ram does not mention providing a communication template as part of such routing (or any 2 In the Final Action, mailed December 13, 2017, Claims 1–20 stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention was directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the Non-Final Action, mailed September 7, 2018, the Examiner appeared to maintain this rejection, but did not actually include it in the Non-Final Action. Nevertheless, the Appellant argues the rejection of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appeal Br. 8. In response, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3. Therefore, the § 101 rejection is not before us. Appeal 2020-001649 Application 14/328,509 4 other) process.” Appeal Br. 20. Appellant additionally argues that neither Bauer nor Schnarel make up for the deficiencies of Ram. Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner responds by finding that Ram teaches that a user is provided with a notification, such as an email message, when the user is unavailable or cannot be reached. Ans. 4. Relying on a dictionary definition for the word “template,” the Examiner newly finds such notification corresponds to the claimed communication template because Ram’s notifications include patterned fields within the email message such as the to line, the from line, the subject line, and the actual message. Ans. 5. In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “template” is an “unreasonably broad interpretation” because it is not based on consideration of the Specification or the claims. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that the communication template of the Specification is for a communication that is not yet sent, whereas Ram’s notification corresponds to an already-sent communication. Reply Br. 4. Appellant additionally argues that “Ram’s email message or other voice-message notification” is not provided within a graphical user interface of the first client device, but is instead provided to the second client device. Reply Br. 5, 7. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Specifically, we agree that Ram does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed “automatically providing, within the communication graphical user interface of the first client device and based on the determined communication type, a communication template that utilizes the determined communication type that is available on the first client device and the second client device.” Appeal 2020-001649 Application 14/328,509 5 Ram discloses a system that allows users to communicate through a virtual assistant system (VAS). See Ram, Abstract, Figure 1. According to Ram, each user is provided with a profile that contains, inter alia, the respective user’s contact information and “a plurality of reach lists for the subscriber, each reach list including a set of contact numbers/addresses for the subscriber.” See Ram, col. 4, line 60–col. 5, line 5. Based on these reach lists and users’ schedules, “the VAS routes communications and messages to the subscriber and also notifies the subscriber of incoming communications.” See Ram, col. 5, lines 7–10. According to Ram, “the VAS provides single-number access for the subscriber, independent of the subscriber’s physical location or communication contact path.” See Ram, col. 5, lines 13–15. Ram’s system is advantageous in that each user does not need to carry multiple devices and subscribe to multiple systems. See Ram, col. 2, lines 52–63. However, the Examiner has not persuasively shown how Ram teaches or suggests determining a communication type that is available on the first client device for allowing communication between the first client device and the second client device by comparing user profile information for the first user to user profile information for the second user. Furthermore, the Examiner has not persuasively shown how Ram teaches or suggests automatically providing a communication template based on the determined communication type and providing the communication template within a graphical user interface of the first client device. In Ram, when a first user attempts to contact a second user, the second user’s reach list is accessed to determine which forms of communication are available for the second user at the time the first user makes the contact attempt. Ram, col. 5, lines 15–37. If the second user is Appeal 2020-001649 Application 14/328,509 6 unavailable at the time of the attempted contact, a message is left with the second user. Ram, col. 5, lines 38-42. The message is in the form of a notification, such as “a page, email message, or other notification communication.” Ram, col. 5, lines 38–42. However, Ram does not teach or fairly suggest that a notification is provided on a graphical user interface of the first user’s device. Furthermore, Ram does not teach or suggest that such notification is a template. While the Appellant’s Specification does not specifically define the term “template,” the Specification gives context with an example of an email template that is provided to the first user through the graphical user interface of the first user’s device. Spec. 25. According to the Specification, “[i]nformation in the template regarding the communicating partner, the user, etc. may be supplied so as to further facilitate the user’s communication.” Spec. 25. It is well settled that, during patent examination, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The broadest reasonable interpretation standard requires the words of the claims to be given their “broadest reasonable meaning . . . in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (citations omitted). Appeal 2020-001649 Application 14/328,509 7 In this case, we agree with Appellant that Ram’s notifications do not further facilitate a communication between the users using the determined communication type as required by the language of independent Claim 1. Additionally, the Examiner does not identify how the teachings of Bauer or Schnarel remedy the noted deficiency. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, 15–20 103(a) Ram, Bauer 1–4, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, 15–20 5, 9, 11, 14 103(a) Ram, Bauer, Schnarel 5, 9, 11, 14 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation