Ex Parte Coppens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

11685194 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/685, 194 03/12/2007
48116 7590 03/17/2016
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Toon Coppens
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.
LUTZ200779 4178
EXAMINER
WAQAS, SAAD A
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOON COPPENS, BART KAREL HEMMERYCKX-
DELEERSNIJDER, HANS DE MONDT, and
GEERT ARTHUR EDITH VAN WONTERGHEM
Appeal2014-003852
Application 11/685, 194
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 3, 4, 14--16, 21, 22 and 27-38. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 11/685, 194
Application 2014-003852
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to enriching communication sessions,
such as mobile telephone calls, telephone conferences, video conferences,
chat sessions, and virtual meetings, with contextual information such as the
location, time zone, or calendar of a person participating in the
communication session, or video streams, pictures, text documents,
presentations, drawings, audio fragments, multimedia content that a person
desires to share with other participants of the communication session. Spec.
1:5-19.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized.
1. A communication system for interconnecting a plurality of
users, compnsmg:
a communication server configured to establish a
communication session between at least a first user and a second
user of said plurality of users;
a context vault configured to maintain context
information, the context information comprising session-based
media content contextually relating to users participating in the
communication session, the context information further
comprising location information, and the context vault
comprising a location vault configured to maintain the location
information, the location information comprising location-based
media content contextually relating to locations of users
participating in the communication session; and
a community context manager configured to maintain user
information, the user information comprising access rights of the
second user to context information associated with the first user,
the community context manager comprising a location context
manager configured to determine locations of at least the first
user and the second user in relation to the communication
sess10n;
2
Appeal 11/685, 194
Application 2014-003852
said community context manager further configured to
select context information in relation to said first user from said
context vault and the context vault further configured to provide
said selected context information or parts thereof during said
communication session to said second user in accordance with
said access rights, the location context manager further
configured to select location information in relation to the
location of the first user from the location vault and the
location vault further configured to provide the selected
location information or parts thereof during the
communication session to the second user in accordance with
the corresponding access rights.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3--4, 14--16, 21-22, and 27-38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ivashin (US 2004/0230651 Al;
Nov. 18, 2004), Johnson (US 2006/0022048 Al; Feb. 2, 2006) and Ebling
(US 2005/0187368 Al; Aug. 25, 2005). Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant in the Briefs are
considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the
Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has
erred. We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and
reasons as set forth in the Action from which this Appeal is taken and the
Examiner's findings and reasons set forth in the Answer. We highlight
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue "[t]his obviousness rejection is in error because
neither Ivashin, nor Johnson, nor Ebling, nor any combination thereof
3
Appeal 11/685, 194
Application 2014-003852
disclose or fairly suggest the 'select location information' limitation to the
'location context manager' sub-element of the 'community context manager'
element or the 'provide ... location information' limitation to the 'location
vault' sub-element of the 'context vault' element." App. Br. 7-8.
In their Appeal Brief, Appellants summarize paragraphs 88-93 of
Johnson and then argue "[n]otably, the cited portions of Johnson do not
disclose or fairly suggest a system that includes a community context
manager with a location context manager that selects location information
relating to a location of a first user from a location vault as recited in the
'select location information' limitation. Rather, the cited portions of
Johnson merely discuss delivery of an alert to a user or group of users
subscribed to a web service based on situational location of the user or
another user." App. Br. 8.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Johnson teaches a community context manager with a
location context manager that selects location information relating to a
location of a first user from a location vault. Final Act. 5-7 (citing Johnson
i-fi-136, 60, 66, and 88-93). For example, Johnson teaches providing location
based services by sharing experiences, such as content deliveries, of one user
with another user in accordance with privileges granted to the users.
Johnson i166. Other than summarizing the disclosure of certain paragraphs
of Johnson and then summarily concluding that Johnson does not teach the
disputed limitation, Appellants offer no explanation or reasoning as to how
or why the specific cited portions of Johnson fails to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. We therefore determine these arguments to be
unpersuasive. See 37 CPR§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments shall explain
4
Appeal 11/685, 194
Application 2014-003852
why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by
appellant. . . . [A ]ny arguments or authorities not included in the appeal
brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present
appeal.") (emphasis added).
Appellants further argue "the claim is directed to a communication
session between two users. The Johnson alerts would not work in the context
of the claimed communication session. Therefore, it is not appropriate to
rely on the cited portions of Johnson for disclosure of the 'select location
information' limitation." App. Br. 8. Appellants' argument is not
persuasive. As the Examiner finds, Johnson explicitly discuses
communications between two or more users. See Ans. 4--5 (citing Johnson ,-r
66). Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or reasoning to rebut the
Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue Ebling does not teach or suggest the "provide ...
location information" limitation. App. Br. 8-9. Again, Appellants
summarize the cited portions of Ebling and then argue these portions "do not
disclose or fairly suggest a system that includes a context vault with a
location vault that provides location information [selected by a location
context manager] to a second user as recited in the 'provide ... location
information' limitation. Rather, the cited portions of Ebling merely discuss
capturing location context information and employing a context log with
historical context information." App. Br. 9.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. As before, other than
summarize portions of Ebling and concluding that such portions do not teach
the disputed limitation, Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or
reasoning to rebut the Examiner's findings. The Examiner finds, and we
5
Appeal 11/685, 194
Application 2014-003852
agree, Ebling's paragraphs 14 and 52 teach this limitation. Ans. 7-8. In
particular Ebling teaches making available and providing location
information of a user. Ebling i-f 52. We agree with the Examiner's finding
that incorporating Ebling's teachings with Johnson and Ivashin teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 8.
Appellants further argue, "[m]oreover, the claim is directed to a
communication session between two users. The Ebling location context
information would not work in the context of the claimed communication
session. Therefore, it is not appropriate to rely on the cited portions of
Ebling for disclosure of the 'provide ... location information' limitation."
App. Br. 9. As before, Appellants' do not provide persuasive evidence or
reasoning explaining why Ebling's location context information would not
work in the context of the claimed communication session between two
users. We are therefore unpersuaded by Appellants' argument.
Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 14 and 21 for which
Appellants make similar arguments. See App. Br. 9-13. We also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 15, 16, 22, and 27-38 for
which Appellants do not make arguments for separate patentability. See id.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 14--16, 21, 22 and 27-38 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6