Ex Parte Wang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 201612921419 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/921,419 09/08/2010 Ke-Li Wang 56436 7590 03/23/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82239434 2715 EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2445 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KE-LI WANG and ROBERTO G. F. SANCHEZ Appeal2014-008357 Application 12/921,419 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and, JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4--20. Claim 3 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention "relates to scheduling and delivering messages, and more particularly, the [invention] relates to systems and methods for scheduling and delivering a message based on a recipient's time zone." Spec., 1, 11. 6-7, Technical Field. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: Appeal2013-008357 Application 12/921,419 1. A method for scheduling and delivering a message based on a recipient's time zone, the method comprising: receiving parameters, defined by and transmitted from a sender of the message, associated with delivering the message to the recipient, the parameters including information associated with the recipient and the time and date associated with delivering the message; requesting location information from a scheduling manager on a device of the recipient based on the received parameters; receiving the requested location information directly from a telecommunications infrastructure service provider associated with the recipient, wherein the requested location information is generated by the telecommunications infrastructure service provider associated with the recipient; calculating a current location of the recipient based on the location information; determining the time zone based on the calculated current location of the recipient; and scheduling a time of delivery of the message based on the parameters and the determined time zone. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-13, and 15-201 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pous et al. (US 7,216,146 B2; issued May 8, 2007), Jhanji (US 7,284,033 B2; issued Oct. 16, 2007); and Tamari et al. (US 2008/0063154 Al; published Mar. 13, 2008, filed Aug. 9, 2006). Final Act. 4--9.2 1 Claim 3 has been cancelled and no longer stands rejected as unpatentable over the cited combination of prior art. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief, filed April 28, 2014 ("Appeal Br."); (2) Appellants' Reply Brief, filed May 27, 2014 2 Appeal2013-008357 Application 12/921,419 The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pous, Jhanji, Tamari, and Blair et al. (US 6, 111,572; issued Aug. 29, 2000). Final Act. 9. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON POUS, JHANJI, AND TAMAR! Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-13, and 15-20 Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8-13, and 15-20 as unpatentable over Pous, Jhanji, and Tamari. Appellants contend that the cited combination fails to teach every limitation of claims 1, 8, and 15. See Appeal Br. 8-14. First, Appellants assert that Pous uses a static portion of an email address entered by the sender to determine an associated country and the time zone of that country. Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br 4--5. According to Appellants, because the time zone is based on the domain name of the email address, Pous does not determine the time zone based on the calculated current location of the recipient. Id. In other words, the recipient's current location may be different from the country indicated by the domain name of the email address. Id. Appellants also note that when a country has more than one time zone, the country indicated by the domain name would not indicate the time zone of the recipient. Appeal Br. 9. ("Reply Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer, mailed May 27, 2014 ("Ans."); and (4) the Examiner's Final Action, mailed December 31, 2013 ("Final Act."). 3 Appeal2013-008357 Application 12/921,419 The Examiner, however, does not rely on Pous for teaching either determining the time zone or calculating the recipient's current location. Rather, the Examiner relies on Pous combined with Jhanji and Tamari for teaching and disclosing these limitations. See, e.g., Ans. 2---6; Final Act. 4-- 6. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, Appellants' argument with respect Pous lacks merit. As Appellants acknowledge, when a country includes a single time zone, this at least suggests that the recipient will be currently located in the time zone of the country. Similarly, Appellants assert that because Pous's method does not calculate the recipient's current location to determine the time zone, Pous cannot schedule delivery based on the recited determined time zone. Appeal Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 6. While the Examiner relies on Pous for teaching the recited scheduling delivery of the message, the rejection is based on Pous in combination with Jhangi and Tamari, and what the combination teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art. Namely, Pous describes scheduling delivery based on a set of rules and time zone of the recipient. Ans. 5---6; Pous, Abstract, col. 3, 11. 53---60. Pous also expressly contemplates using alternative methods to obtain the time zone information. See Pous, Abstract (noting that the domain name of a country is usedfor example to obtain the time zone). Jhangi as modified by Tamari teaches and suggests one such method of determining the time zone, based on the calculated current location of the recipient. See, e.g., Ans. 4; Final Act. 6-7. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Pous in view of 4 Appeal2013-008357 Application 12/921,419 the alternative method of determining the time zone, as taught and suggested by Jhangi and Tamari, would satisfy the recited scheduling a time of delivery of the message based on the parameters and the determined time zone. Next, Appellants argue that Jhanji lacks any teaching or suggestion of receiving parameters, defined by and transmitted from a sender of the message, associated with delivering the message to the recipient, much less requesting location information from a scheduling manager on a device of the recipient based on the received parameters defined by and transmitted from a sender. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner, though, relies on Pous to teach and suggest receiving parameters defined by and transmitted from the sender of the message. See, e.g., Final Act. 4; Ans. 9. As such, this argument is unpersuasive. With respect to the recited requesting location information limitation, Appellants further explain that Jhanji's location status is "self-declared" and may not furnish instantaneous location updates. Appeal Br. 10-12; see also Reply Br. 8. Thus, according to Appellants, because Jhanji's location information may not be "current," Jhanji does not teach calculating a current location of the recipient based on the location information. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br 9-10. Additionally, Appellants note that the location information in Jhanji is not "directly from a telecommunication infrastructure service provider associated with the recipient." Appeal Br. 11 (citations omitted). Appellants' arguments are unavailing. Jhanji expressly teaches a system to make available and control sharing of information about the user, including present and planned locations. See, e.g., Jhanji, col. 9, 11. 18-27. The claims do not require "instantaneous" location updates, but more 5 Appeal2013-008357 Application 12/921,419 generally refer to current location information. This is precisely the type of information Jhanji provides. See Jhanji, col. 9, 11. 18-27; Jhanji, col. 12, 11. 15-17 (noting that GPS is useful for finding current location information); see also Ans. 10-13. Moreover, Appellants' arguments fail to consider Jhanji's teachings and suggestions, in view of Tamari, as proposed by the Examiner. Specifically, the Examiner combines Jhanji with Tamari "to further refine Jhanji by locating the most updated location of the recipient by using GPS location techniques, in order to accurately deliver the messages scheduled by the sender to the recipient." Final Act. 7 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 11-13. Tamari additionally describes that the location information is directly from a telecommunication infrastructure service provider. See Ans. 18. Therefore, Appellants arguments are unconvincing. Appellants next argue that Jhanji teaches away from incorporating a GPS system, as disclosed by Tamari. Reply Br. 9. We disagree. Jhanji expressly recognizes that the GPS system is useful for current information, but only notes that it does not provide future information. See Jhanji, col. 12, 11. 15-17. Contrary to Appellants' assertions, this teaching expressly supports modifying the combination of Pous and Jhanji to include a GPS system, as taught by Tamari, for up to date current location information. See also DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("A reference does not teach away[ ... ] ifit merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention[.]"). Further, Appellants' assert that Jhanji's "profile or past activity" is not a "scheduling manager on a device of the recipient." Reply Br. 9. 6 Appeal2013-008357 Application 12/921,419 For example, .. .Jhanji discloses "the user profiles ... are stored in a backend database system, which is coupled to the Internet and remote from the mobile internet devices, to reduce the need to store large volumes of data locally on the mobile internet devices ... [and are] accessed by the mobile internet users ... by filling out webpages which are served up to the user upon accessing the service's website[] in order to reduce the need to download executable codes or to store executable codes on the mobile Internet devices" (col. 10, lines 31-42). Reply Br. 9. We find this argument unpersuasive. Jhanji discloses that the user must provide or submit the location information through use of the mobile device. Jhanji, Abstract. As such, Jhanji's system is at least partially on the recipient's device, and the user, through the mobile device, provides the location information of the user. We also note that the claim does not require the current location information to be stored on the device, rather the claim merely requires "requesting location information from a scheduling manager on a device of the recipient." The claim; then; only requires the scheduling manager to be on the device of the recipient. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Jhanji teaches and suggests this limitation. Appellants' arguments with respect to Tamari are likewise unavailing. In particular, Appellants assert that While Tamari describes that a GPS system can be used to indicate the proximity of a recipient to a notification channel (Page 5, i-f [0051 ]), Tamari does not teach or suggest that a GPS system has anything to do with a telecommunications provider associated with the recipient, that the GPS system utilizes information generated by a telecommunications provider associated with the recipient, and/or that the GPS system is providing any such information responsive to a request to a scheduling manager on a device of the recipient based on parameters defined and transmitted by the sender. 7 Appeal2013-008357 Application 12/921,419 Appeal Br. 13. To the contrary, as the Examiner explains, Tamari discloses using a GPS system to track a location of a user. It is reasonable to equate a GPS system as being part of a telecommunications infrastructure service provider (GPS satellite communicates with phone and relays information), and reasonable to equate it to a telecommunications infrastructure service associated with the recipient (GPS satellite communicates with phone of user, therefore an association with the recipient [user] exists). The receipt of location information using GPS as taught in at least Jhanji and Tamari is performed by using the GPS system, or "directly from a telecommunications infrastructure service provider associated with the recipient." Ans. 18. We are not persuaded of error in these findings. Finally, Appellants contend that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine "user-posted, self-declared location information, as taught by Jhanji, and selecting a communication channel based on a presence indicator, as taught and suggested by Tamari, with a system using a static portion of an email address domain entered by the email sender to apply rules to delivery of the associated email, as taught by Pous." Appeal Br. 14. Particularly, Appellants maintain that Pous lacks the "infrastructure and interfaces to incorporate and utilize" the features as taught by Jhanji and Tamari. Id. We disagree. Pous is directed to a system for scheduling to deliver a specific message based on the time zone of the intended recipient. See, e.g., Pous, Abstract; Final Act. 6. Pous also teaches that the time zone may be determined,for example, from an internet e-mail domain name. Id. Pous, therefore, expressly acknowledges use of other methods for obtaining the time zone of an intended message recipient. One such method is taught and suggested by the combination of Jhanji and Tamari. See, e.g., Ans. 4. 8 Appeal2013-008357 Application 12/921,419 Namely, Jhanji's activity coordinating system includes inputted current location information for a user, which would be further refined to use the GPS information or extracted time zone information in view of Tamari. Final Act. 7. In other words, a skilled artisan would recognize that Jhanji teaches requesting location information for other users from Jhanji's activity coordinating system and Tamari teaches and suggests that current location information may be obtained using GPS information and/or extracting the local time from a device. As the Examiner explains, "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use Jhanji's location/ calendar in conjunction with Pous' [ s] system of scheduling email delivery based on the recipient location in order to get the user to receive the email at the specific time which they need it." Final Act. 6. Further, "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to further refine Jhanji by locating the most updated location of the recipient by using GPS location techniques, in order to accurately deliver the messages scheduled by the sender to the recipient." Final Act. 7. Moreover, as discussed above, Jhanji expressly recognizes the benefits of using GPS information for identifying the current location information. See, e.g., Jhangi, col. 12, 11. 15-17. The Examiner, thus, clearly articulates sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. Appellants' arguments regarding a "lack of infrastructure" of Pous is similarly unpersuasive. Namely, "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined 9 Appeal2013-008357 Application 12/921,419 teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). Appellants' remaining arguments are also unavailing. Specifically, Appellants merely list claim limitations without any persuasive argument as to why the limitations are missing from the cited combination and Appellants argue limitations individually without considering the combination of references. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 8, 10, 12; Reply Br. 10-11. For example, Appellants list Pous as failing to teach requesting location information, but fail to present any argument regarding this limitation. See Appeal Br. 8-10. We also note that the Examiner relies on Jhangi for this limitation. See Final Act. 18. Another example is Appellants' contention that Tamari does not schedule a time delivery of a message based on the parameters and the determined time zone. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner relies on Pous, in view of Jhanji and Tamari, for this limitation. Final Act. 5; Ans. 17. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, claims 1, 8 and 15, as well as claims 2, 4---6, 9-13, and 16-20 not argued with particularity, are unpatentable over Pous, Jhanji, and Tamari. 10 Appeal2013-008357 Application 12/921,419 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS BASED ON POUS, JHANJI, TAMAR!, AND BLAIR Claims 7 and 14 Appellants present no separate arguments of patentability with respect to claims 7 and 14 and, instead, rely on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 8. As discussed above, we find these arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, claims 7 and 14 are unpatentable over Pous, Jhanji, Tamari, and Blair. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--20 under § 103. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation