Ex Parte Hansen et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 16, 201512140610 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 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. 12/140,610 06/17/2008 Joseph A. Hansen RSW920080072US1 3810 58139 7590 01/20/2015 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. P.O. BOX 131851 DALLAS, TX 75313 EXAMINER ASANBAYEV, OLEG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2652 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/20/2015 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 JOSEPH A. HANSEN, MARK E. PETERS, and STEVEN DAVID SWANSON ____________ Appeal 2012-006802 Application 12/140,610 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1–19 (App. Br. 1). Examiner entered a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corporation (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2012-006802 Application 12/140,610 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to a computer implemented method for social network based call management, a data processing system for social network based call management, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a computer program product for social network based call management, and a social network based call management system for managing telephone calls. Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 are representative and are reproduced in the Claims Appendix of Appellants’ Brief. Claims 1–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Carnazza.2 ISSUE Does the preponderance of evidence on this record support Examiner’s finding that Carnazza teaches Appellants’ claimed invention? FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF) FF 1. Carnazza “relates to a system and method for call forwarding, and more particularly to network-based call forwarding according to dynamic information concerning a subscriber stored in an address book, calendar, or presence database” (Carnazza ¶ 1 (emphasis added); see also id. at ¶ 30 (“the presence server . . . provides the subscriber’s destination phone number and presence information”)). 2 Carnazza et al., US 2004/0028208 A1, published Feb. 12, 2004. Appeal 2012-006802 Application 12/140,610 3 FF 2. Carnazza’s Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below: “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of the invention, which efficiently directs incoming communications so high priority communications reach a subscriber immediately, while lower priority communications are directed otherwise” (Carnazza ¶ 14). “FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary subscriber entry in the address book database 130” (id. at ¶ 21). FF 3. Carnazza describes the use of various routing rules, associated with a subscribers address book, calendar, and/or the information present in the subscribers presence server” (see generally id. at ¶¶ 5–39). FF 4. Examiner finds that Carnazza’s address book is equivalent to the social network of Appellants’ claimed invention (Ans. 5–6; see also id. at 9 (Carnazza’s “[a]ddress book database 130 reads on the claimed social network because the address book information . . . clearly defines Appeal 2012-006802 Application 12/140,610 4 subscriber’s social network . . . [and] define[s] the relationships of the contacts to the subscriber”)). ANALYSIS Appellants’ claims require that caller attributes are obtained from a social network, wherein the attributes describe a caller relationship to the subscriber (see Appellants’ independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19). Appellants contend that “Carnazza does not disclose ‘obtaining attributes for the caller from the social network, wherein the attributes describe a caller relationship to the subscriber’” (see generally App. Br. 5 (emphasis added); Cf. FF 4). In this regard, Appellants contend that Examiner failed to establish that an address book reads on, or “corresponds to a social network site” (see generally App. Br. 8). Appellants contend that in contrast to an address book, those of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized that [A] social network as discussed in Appellants’ specification (e.g., paragraphs [0037, 0038, 0040, 0043, 0044, 0058, 0061, 0062] . . . refers to a network site containing attribute information for a relationship between the subscriber and the caller. In fact, a definition “social network” in the computer arts may refer to an online community of people with a common interest who use a website or other technologies to communicate with each other and share information, resources, etc. See, e.g., http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+ network. Another definition of “social network” in the computer arts may refer to a website or online service that facilitates this communication. (Reply Br. 3 (emphasis and endnote removed).) We agree. In sum, Examiner failed to establish an evidentiary basis on this record to support a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably Appeal 2012-006802 Application 12/140,610 5 considered an address book to represent, read on, or be an equivalent of, a social network. CONCLUSION OF LAW The preponderance of evidence on this record fails to support Examiner’s finding that Carnazza teaches Appellants’ claimed invention. The rejection of claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Carnazza is reversed. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation