Ex Parte White et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2013

10906065 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2013)

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.
10/906,065 02/01/2005 Shannon R. White 1933.1620001 3065
82515 7590 04/29/2013
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
EXAMINER
MAGLOIRE, VLADIMIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2013 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 SHANNON R. WHITE, GENO COSCHI,
and ANDREW J. QUICK
____________

Appeal 2010-0008465
Application 10/906,065
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-46, which are all of the pending claims We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2010-008465
Application 10/906,065

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Appeal Brief (filed June 9, 2009), the Answer
(mailed Sept. 30, 2009), and the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 9, 2009). Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
(see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates generally to data processing
environments and, more particularly, to a system providing methodology for
extending messaging systems to mobile devices. See generally Abstract and
Spec. ¶ [0006].

Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:

1. A system for messaging between applications, the system
comprising:
a database at a mobile device for receiving a message from an
application at the mobile device for transmission to a particular application
at another device;
an agent at the mobile device for sending the message to a server by
synchronizing the database at the mobile device with a consolidated
database at the server;
a consolidated database at the server for storing the message received
from the mobile device; and
a module at the server for providing the message to the particular
application.

Appeal 2010-008465
Application 10/906,065

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Kouznetsov US 2004/0152450 A1 Aug. 5, 2004
Sagara US 2005/0232263 A1 Oct. 20, 2005
(filed Aug. 31, 2004)

Claims 1-46, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sagara in view of Kouznetsov.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 and 7-19
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1 initially focus on the alleged deficiency of
Sagara in teaching or suggesting the exchanging of messages between
applications. According to Appellants, Sagara merely discloses the transfer
of packet level control information in a packet communication network
(App. Br. 8). In Appellants’ view (id.at 8-9), Sagara’s system operates at a
lower network level in transmitting data packet among nodes while
Appellants’ system relates to exchanging messages which Appellants
characterize as “client level objects,” or “user level objects.”
We do not agree with Appellants as our interpretation of the
disclosure of Sagara coincides with that of the Examiner. Initially, we note
that Appellants’ disclosure provides no special definition for the term
“message.” While Appellants refer to paragraphs [18] and [126] of their
Specification in their arguments, these paragraphs merely describe the
message flow between a mobile device and a server, but provide no
Appeal 2010-008465
Application 10/906,065

4
guidance as to how the term “message” itself is to be interpreted (App. Br.
9).
Further, Appellants’ arguments do not demonstrate any error in the
Examiner’s explanation and characterization of the data transmission in
Sagara as a message transmission. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 17),
a user in Sagara inputs a message to be sent to a destination device with the
message being formatted as a packet which includes source and destination
addresses and a payload (Fig. 5; ¶¶ [0073]-[0076]). This interpretation of
the terms “packet” and “message” comports with an accepted dictionary
meaning of the term “packet” as illustrated in the following excerpt from
Webster’s New World Telecom Dictionary:
1

In the generic sense, referring to the manner in which
data are organized into discrete units for transmission
and switching through a data network. The data unit
can be known as a block, frame, cell, or packet,
depending on the protocol specifics. The packet
comprises a header, payload, and sometimes a trailer,
again depending on protocol specifics. The packet can
be a user packet containing user data, or a signaling
and control packet for various network monitoring,
alerting and alarming, maintenance, and other
administrative purposes. The payload can be a complete
message, a fragment or segment of a message, or an
aggregation of bits or bytes that form a short portion
of a long data stream associated with a voice or video
call. (Emphasis added).

Appellants’ further related argument (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3-4)
that the databases in Sagara do not store messages but, instead, store packet

1
Webster’s New World Telecom Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley
Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana.
Appeal 2010-008465
Application 10/906,065

5
routing information is equally unpersuasive since, as discussed above, the
routing information contained in the payload of Sagara’s control packet can
be reasonably interpreted as a message. Further, contrary to Appellants’
contention, the packetized messages in Sagara are transmitted from
communication node to communication node by the synchronization of the
databases associated with each of the communication nodes (¶¶ [0060]-
[0062] and [0066]-[0068]. Further, contrary to Appellants’ contention (App.
Br. 10; Reply Br. 4), we find no error in the Examiner’s determination (Ans.
4) that the control apparatus 40 of Sagara functions as a consolidation server
which updates its associated consolidated database and transmits update
messages by database synchronization with the databases (30-1, etc.)
associated with communication apparatuses (20-1, etc.).
We also find that the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 4) provides a
valid articulated line of reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness for the proposed combination of Sagara
with Kouznetsov. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kouznetsov’s mobile
device application-to application messaging teaching would be recognized
by the artisan as an obvious enhancement to the communication system of
Sagara.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1 as well the rejection of dependent claims 2,
3, and 7-19 not separately argued by Appellants.

Appeal 2010-008465
Application 10/906,065

6
Claims 20-22 and 25-34
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 20, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 21, 22, and 25-34 not
separately argued by Appellants. Appellants’ arguments direct attention to
the language of claim 20 which sets forth that databases are synchronized
“when the mobile device establishes connectivity with the server.”
According to Appellants, the recited language characterizes Appellants’
occasionally connected environment and distinguishes over the assumed
permanent connections of Sagara and Kouznetsov (App. Br. 11-13; Reply
Br. 5).
We do not agree with Appellants. We find nothing in Sagara that
supports Appellants’ contention that the connections between the originating
device and the consolidated server are permanent. Further, even assuming
arguendo that a permanent connection is ultimately established in Sagara,
Appellants’ cited claimed “when” clause does not distinguish over the initial
set-up connection required between the terminal device and the
communication nodes. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s
determination that the transmission of the message packet from the
originating device to the consolidation server in Sagara triggers the
synchronization process (Ans. 4). That is, synchronization of the originating
device with the consolidation server database occurs when connection is
established between the originating device and the consolidation server in
Sagara (¶¶ [0060]-[0062] and [0066]-[0068]. Further, Kouznetsov, applied
in combination with Sagara, specifically teaches that the messaging
application and the server are not permanently connected as there is no open
socket connection to the server (¶ [0013], ll. 15-21).
Appeal 2010-008465
Application 10/906,065

7
Dependent claims 4-6, 23, and 24
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4-6, 23,
and 24 is also sustained. In addition to reiterating their contention that
Sagara does not store or transfer messages, an argument we have previously
found unpersuasive, Appellants argue that, in contrast to Sagara, their
invention provides for guarantee of message delivery between occasionally
connected devices (App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 5-6). As pointed out by the
Examiner (Ans. 20), however, there is no guaranteed delivery feature recited
in the rejected claims. Further, although Appellants again direct attention to
their disclosed “occasional” connection between the messaging application
and the server, there is no claim language which distinguishes over the
connections disclosed in Sagara and Kouznetsov as previously discussed.

Claims 35, 39, 40, and 42-46
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 35, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 39, 40, and 42-46 not
separately argued by Appellants. With respect to independent claim 35,
Appellants direct attention to the claimed feature of user established “rules”
which specify when particular messages are to be transmitted. According to
Appellants, the Examiner erred in analogizing Sagara’s quality of service
“procedures” with the claimed transmission “rules.”
We do not agree with Appellants. As explained by the Examiner
(Ans. 5 and 21), while Sagara does not use the term “rules,” Sagara
nonetheless discloses user-defined transmission “procedures” which specify
which kind of messages are to be sent and when they are to be sent as
claimed (Figs. 7-9 and 12; (¶¶ [0080]-[0082] and [0091-0094]. It is also
Appeal 2010-008465
Application 10/906,065

8
noteworthy that Appellants’ disclosure describes the compiling of
transmission “rules” into stored “procedures” which control which messages
are sent to the server for delivery (Spec., ¶ [0113]).
We further agree with the Examiner that Kouznetsov’s discussion (¶
[0014]) of dynamic polling “rules” supplements the teachings of Sagara.
Contrary to Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 6-7), we find
that Kouznetsov’s polling frequency rules, which are based on the amount of
message activity, will regulate transmission of messages.

Dependent claims 37 and 38
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 37 and 38,
which are directed to a rule-based network connection feature, is also
sustained. Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 17-18) are not convincing of
any error in the Examiner’s determination (Ans. 21-22) that the priority
based message transmission routing path connection teachings of Sagara
correspond to that claimed (Fig. 9; (¶¶ [0082] and [0101]). We further agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 21) that Kouznetsov’s wired/wireless connection
selection disclosure (¶ [0010]) supplements the teachings of Sagara.

Dependent claims 36 and 41
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 36 and 41. We find no error in the Examiner’s determination (Ans.
13-15) that Sagara’s disclosure of user selection of message properties
including a specification of time-based delivery corresponds to that claimed
(Figs. 5 and 7-12; (¶¶ [0073]-[0076] and [0091-0094]). Further, although
we don’t necessarily agree with Appellants that Sagara is limited to user
Appeal 2010-008465
Application 10/906,065

9
selection of fixed system-defined choices, there is no claim language which
limits the user rule specification to user-defined rules. Conversely, there is
no claim language which precludes user specification of message
transmission properties and rules by selecting from system-defined choices.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-46 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-46 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED

kis