Ex Parte Itani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2017

13714364 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2017)

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.
13/714,364 12/13/2012 Majed Itani 1301-018CIP 2319
7590 06/13/201729973
CRGO LAW
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, JOHNESE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2017 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@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUGARCRM INC.1
Appeal 2016-006403
Application 13/714,364
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-
final rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellant discloses automated action building in a customer
relationship management system based upon social networking changes
detected in a social network. Abstract.
1 Majed Itani, Rob Aggaard, Lila Tretikov, and Clint Oram are the inventors.
Appeal 2016-006403
Application 13/714,364
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A method for automated action building in a customer
relationship management (CRM) system based upon social
networking data changes detected in a social network, the
method comprising:
registering different customers in a CRM application for
social network monitoring;
detecting an event for one of the registered different
customers in a social networking system communicatively
coupled to the CRM application over a computer
communications network; and,
responding to the event by posting an action in the CRM
application for the one of the registered different customers.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Perkowski (US 2008/0021778 Al; Jan. 24,
2008). Non-Final Act. 2—5.
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 5—7, 9, 10, 12—14, 16, 17, and 19-
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perkowski2 and
Shapiro (US 2002/0059283 Al; May 16, 2002). Non-Final Act. 6-8.
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts
and reasons as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
2 The Examiner mistakenly omits Perkowski from the statement of the
rejection, but includes Perkowski in the body of the rejection. Non-Final
Act. 2. This typographical error is harmless.
2
Appeal 2016-006403
Application 13/714,364
appeal was taken. We concur with the Examiner’s legal conclusions. We
have considered Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of
error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Perkowski’s use of a
cookie management technique to identify a particular customer who has
logged into a social network discloses detecting an event for one of the
registered different customers in a social networking system. Non-Final
Act. 3 (citing Perkowski | 842). The Examiner further finds that
Perkowski’s use of a customer relationship management system to
automatically program content reflecting the user’s desires, tastes, and
preferences discloses responding to the event by posting an action in the
CRM application for the one of the registered different customers. Non-
Final Act. 3 (citing Perkowski | 842).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Perkowski merely
“provides for detection of a particular customer through a Web browser
cookie in order to cause the customization of’ a Multi-Mode Virtual Kiosk.
App. Br. 8. Appellant argues that “[t]o the extent the detection of the
customer using the Web browser is considered to be an event, the event is
not one of a social networking system for a registered customer in the CRM
application.” Id.', see also Reply Br. 5 (“the claim language requires the
detection of an event for a customer registered in a social networking
system”).
Appellant’s argument unpersuasively fails to distinguish the claimed
detection of an event from Perkowski’s identification of a customer who has
logged in (where the login represents an event). Ans. 3. In particular,
Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s finding that because Perkowski’s
3
Appeal 2016-006403
Application 13/714,364
has the capability of transmitting Multi-Mode Virtual Kiosks to friends,
associates, and customers within a social network, the detected login
represents an event for a customer in a social networking system. Ans. 3
(citing Perkowski | 882). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Perkowski discloses “detecting an event for one of the registered different
customers in a social networking system,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellant further argues that Perkowski’s detection of a particular
customer does not disclose “responding to the event by posting an action in
the CRM application for the customer.” App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellant
argues “the ‘automatic updating’ referred to in paragraph [0842] is not an
automatic updating for a customer for whom the event had been detected.”
Reply Br. 5. However, the Examiner’s findings show that Perkowski’s
updates (i.e., content programming) use the detected customer identity such
that the updates reflect the customer’s desires, tastes, and preferences. See
Ans. 3^4; Perkowski | 842. We agree with the Examiner that this
relationship between detection of the particular customer and the use of the
customer’s profile in the update process demonstrates that Perkowski
discloses “responding to the event by posting an action in the CRM
application for the one of the registered different customers,” as recited in
claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18, which Appellant does not argue
separately. App. Br. 8—9. For these same reasons, we also sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 3, 5—7, 9, 10, 12—14,
16, 17, and 19-21. See id. at 9-10.
4
Appeal 2016-006403
Application 13/714,364
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—21.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5