Ex Parte Gyure et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201511642452 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2015) 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. 11/642,452 12/19/2006 Wesley Jerome Gyure RSW920060183US1 3154 66517 7590 09/24/2015 STEVEN E. BACH, ATTORNEY AT LAW 10 ROBERTS ROAD NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073 EXAMINER HUSSAIN, TAUQIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2452 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WESLEY JEROME GYURE, RYAN ALEXANDER BOYLES, ADAM MARC HOOVER, and PAUL FRANKLIN McMAHAN ____________ Appeal 2012-007976 Application 11/642,452 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1–10 and 12–21, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. (Br. 2). Appeal 2012-007976 Application 11/642,452 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to “a method, program product, and system for managing messages for which a response has been requested (i.e., response requested messages)” (Spec. 2:12–13). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method for managing messages, said method comprising the steps of: a computer receiving an input from a user to mark a message sent by the user as a response requested message, and in response, the computer making a record that the message is a response requested message; the computer receiving a response message responding to the response requested message, and in response, the computer linking the response message to the response requested message; the computer presenting the response message at a user interface for the user; the computer querying the user to indicate whether the user is satisfied with the response message; and in response to an indication from the user indicating whether the user is satisfied with the response message, the computer updating the user interface to reflect whether the user is satisfied with the response message. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1–6, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoblit (US 2004/0044735 A1; Mar. 4, 2004) and Qureshi (US 2007/0136430 A1; June 14, 2007). (See Ans. 4–8). Appeal 2012-007976 Application 11/642,452 3 Claims 7–10, 12, 13, 15–17, and 19–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoblit, Qureshi, and Stokes (US 2008/0052284 A1; Feb. 28, 2008). (See Ans. 8–11). Appellants’ Contentions 1. With respect to independent claims 1, 14, and 18, Appellants contend the Examiner’s proposed combination of Hoblit and Qureshi is improper because: a. “[d]etermining the status of not receiving a confirmation is not the same as querying a user whether a response is satisfactory, which is based on content and not status” (Br. 13), and b. Qureshi’s updates to user interface to reflect the status of a confirmation is not the same as the original user’s satisfaction with a response (Br. 14). 2. With respect to dependent claims 9, 10, and 12, Appellants argue the combination of Hoblit, Qureshi, and Stokes fails to teach or suggest the recited features because Qureshi does not resend the message automatically (Br. 15) and Stokes’ flags of policy violations are presented at the message recipient’s user interface (Br. 16). 3. Regarding dependent claim 21, Appellants contend neither paragraph 3 of Hoblit, nor any part of the other references teaches or suggests linking messages by common context and characteristics of messages (Br. 16–17). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting appealed claims 1–10 and 12–21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hoblit and Qureshi or over Hoblit, Qureshi, and Stokes because the combination of the applied Appeal 2012-007976 Application 11/642,452 4 references is improper and fails to teach or suggest the argued claim limitations? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 11–14). However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. With respect to Appellants’ contention 1a, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 11–12), paragraph 56 of Qureshi discloses resending an email if the confirmation receipt is overdue. As further explained by the Examiner (Ans. 11), user’s selection of the resend button on the user interface, if a delivery confirmation is not received, is an indication whether the user is satisfied (or dissatisfied) with the response message in the form of an overdue response. We also observe that the manner of indicating whether the user is satisfied with the response message is not specified in the claims. Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized resending an email when a delivery confirmation is not received as an indication of whether the user is satisfied with the response. With respect to Appellants’ contention 1b, the Examiner finds paragraph 55 of Qureshi discloses updating the confirmation status view on Appeal 2012-007976 Application 11/642,452 5 the user interface on an ongoing basis (see Ans. 12). We also agree with this finding. With respect to Appellants’ contention 2, we further agree with the Examiner’s finding that paragraphs 56 and 65 of Qureshi teach a response requested message is resent automatically if a delivery confirmation is not received, which may reasonably be considered a notice of policy violation (Ans. 13). Additionally, the Examiner properly finds Stokes teaches resending a message to its recipient based on a policy violation by adding flags to the message (id. (citing Stokes ¶¶ 42–45, Figs. 5A, 5B)). Regarding Appellants’ contention 3, the Examiner points to the e-mail thread disclosed in paragraphs 3 and 31 of Hoblit as teaching the recited “linking messages with common context . . . [and] characteristics” (Ans. 13– 14). We again agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the proposed combination would have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. CONCLUSIONS In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred in finding various combinations of Hoblit, Qureshi, and Stokes teach or suggest the disputed claim limitations. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 14, and 18, dependent claims 9, 10, 12, and 21, as well as the remaining dependent claims which are not argued separately. Appeal 2012-007976 Application 11/642,452 6 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–10 and 12–21 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED dw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation