Ex Parte Itani et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 9, 201713714364 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation