MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2022

2021001079 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2022)

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. 15/600,619 05/19/2017 Rayyan JABER MS1-9053US 8815 142810 7590 03/28/2022 Newport IP, LLC 1400 112th Ave SE Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 EXAMINER ALMAGHAYREH, KHALID M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2492 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2022 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@newportip.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com scott@newportip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAYYAN JABER, DANIEL WILLIAM CREVIER, and CHIA-JIUN TAN Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 Technology Center 2400 BEFORE HUNG H. BUI, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-16, 18-20, 23, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. §1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The instant application relates to remote storage services for, e.g., storing and accessing files for home, work, or school. Spec. ¶ 2. In particular, individuals may have both a personal and a business account with a remote storage service. Id. According to the Specification, it can be difficult or time consuming for an individual to manually select the appropriate account, i.e., personal or business, to store each file. Id. To address this issue, the instant disclosure describes techniques in which a computer analyzes information to determine whether to store a file in a personal or business account. Id. ¶ 4. The Specification explains, “[i]nstead of prompting the user to manually select whether to upload the data, such as a photograph, to the personal account or business account, the techniques described herein determine whether the data is related to a business of the user, or whether the data is personal.” Id. 5. In one example, in order to analyze whether a photograph should be classified as personal or business, the system accesses and analyzes data from the user’s calendar to determine whether the user was in a business meeting or a personal meeting when the photograph was created. Id. ¶ 6. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining a request to store a file with a remote storage service; obtaining calendar data from a calendar of a user; analyzing at least a portion of the file and the calendar data to determine whether the file comprises personal data or business data, wherein the portion of the file comprises a time and a date of creation of the file and the analyzing at least the portion of the file and the calendar data comprises identifying an event Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 3 indicated in the calendar data at the same time and date of creation of the file; selecting, by an operating system component of a computing device, a first account at the remote storage service that is associated with the user and causing the file to be stored in the first account when it is determined that the file comprises personal data; and selecting, by the operating system component of the computing device, a second account at the remote storage service that is associated with the user and causing the file to be stored in the second account when it is determined that the file comprises business data. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Beguin US 8,949,353 B1 Feb. 3, 2015 Elliott US 2016/0261669 A1 Sept. 8, 2016 Rajan US 2017/0097933 A1 Apr. 6, 2017 Kapczynski US 9,853,959 B1 Dec. 26, 2017 REJECTIONS2 The claims stand rejected as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1-3, 6 103 Beguin, Rajan 4, 7 103 Beguin, Rajan, Elliott 8-12, 14 103 Beguin, Elliott 2 The Final Office Action rejects claims 8-12, 16, and 18-20 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner withdraws the rejection in the Answer, and therefore, has removed the issue of the indefiniteness rejection from this appeal. Ans. 4. Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 4 15, 16, 18, 23 103 Beguin, Kapczynski, Elliott3 19, 20, 25 103 Beguin, Kapczynski, Elliott4 OPINION Background Appellant argues independent claims 1, 8, and 15 separately, and submits that the rejections of each dependent claim should be reversed for the same reasons as for the independent claim from which it depends. Appeal Br. 8-30. The rejections rely primarily on Beguin, wherein additional references are cited to supply missing claim elements. It is instructive to first briefly describe Beguin and how the Examiner applies it to claim 1 of the instant application. Beguin relates to selecting a messaging account (e.g., email account) to send a message to. Beguin [57]. Specifically, a user may have multiple 3 Although the stated ground of rejection for claim 15 in the Final Office Action is based on the combination of Beguin and Kapczynski, Appellant amended claim 15 after the Final Action by adding a new claim limitation from claim 24, and canceled claim 24. Amendment Filed on the Date of Filing an Appeal Brief, 5 (July 3, 2020). The Examiner entered the amendment of claim 15, and applied the rejection of claim 24 in the Final Action to the rejection of claim 15, wherein the rejection relies on Elliott for the newly added limitation. See generally Advisory Action (July 16, 2020) (hereinafter, “Advisory”). Therefore, claim 15, as well as claims 16, 18, and 23, depending therefrom, currently stand as being rejected over the combination Beguin, Kapczynski, and Elliot. 4 After the Final Office Action, Appellant canceled claim 24. Amendment Filed on the Date of Filing an Appeal Brief, 6 (July 3, 2020). The Examiner entered the amendment. See generally Advisory. Therefore, claim 24 is no longer pending. Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 5 message accounts, e.g., a personal account and a business account. Id. at 2:1-7. Beguin explains that this may result in confusion, inconvenience, and inattention, leading to inadvertently sending a message to an incorrect account. Id. at 1:5-11. Beguin addresses this problem by implementing a technique in which a message and additional data are analyzed to determine a confidence level indicating how well a message corresponds to various accounts. Id. at 5-23. Based on the confidence levels, the system selects a message account to send the message to. Id. The message is then sent to an appropriate message server. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1 (message server 128(1)- (S)), 3:56-59. Figure 1 of Beguin, reproduced below, is illustrative. Figure 1 of Beguin depicts a system for selecting a message account to receive a message. Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 6 User 104 sends a request to send a message, such as an email message. Id. at 12:56-60. Messaging Account Determination Module 122 analyzes data from data compilation module 202, association server interface module 204, message attributes data 206, and message accounts parameters 208, to determine confidence level(s) that the message is associated with one or more of a plurality of message accounts, and based on the confidence level(s), selects one of the plurality of message accounts to send the message to. Id. at 3:38-55; 4:59-6:14; 12:61-14:2. Messaging Application 120 sends the message to the selected account by sending the message to one of message servers 128(1), 128(2), . . . 128(S). Id. at 3:24- 33, 3:56-64, 13:66-14:2. Message servers 128 may comprise, inter alia, individual servers. Id. at 3:65-67. For the following recitations of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 32) (Claims App.), obtaining a request to store a file with a remote storage service; obtaining calendar data from a calendar of a user, analyzing at least a portion of the file and the calendar data to determine whether the file comprises personal data or business data, wherein the portion of the file comprises a time and a date of creation of the file and the analyzing at least the portion of the file and the calendar data comprises analyzing at least a portion of the field and the calendar data comprises identifying an event indicated in the calendar data at the same time and date of creation of the file; the Examiner maps the message in Beguin (which may be, e.g., an email message, as discussed above) to the claimed “file.” Final Act. 4 (citing Beguin, Fig. 9, block 902). The Examiner finds that Beguin teaches “obtaining a request to store a file with a remote storage service,” because Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 7 Beguin discloses receiving a request to send a message that will be stored in a selected account at a remote server after being sent. Id. at 4 (citing Beguin, Fig. 9, block 902). The Examiner finds that Beguin’s messaging determination module 122 analyzes the message (i.e., “file”) and additional data (e.g., message attributes or message account parameters) to determine whether the message is personal or for business, by determining confidence levels. Id. at 4-5 (citing Beguin 12:61-66); Ans. 9 (citing Beguin 5:50-56). Beguin further discloses one embodiment in which the additional data that is analyzed includes the date and time the message was created, wherein if the message was created outside the working hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., the message is more closely associated with personal email. Id. at 5 (citing Beguin 7:8-15). For the remaining recitations of claim 1, which recite (Appeal Br. 32) (Claims App.), selecting, by an operating system component of a computing device, a first account at the remote storage service that is associated with the user and causing the file to be stored in the first account when it is determined that the file comprises personal data; and selecting, by the operating system component of the computing device, a second account at the remote storage service that is associated with the user and causing the file to be stored in the second account when it is determined that the file comprises business data the Examiner finds that Beguin’s selection of a message account to send the message to (e.g., a personal email account or business email account), wherein the message account resides at a particular message server 128, teaches selecting (and storing the message in) a first account of a user at a remote storage serve associated with the user when it is determined the Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 8 message is personal and selecting a second account of a user at a remote storage serve associated with the user when it is determined the message is for business. Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 8. The only explicit teaching missing from claim 1 is disclosure of retrieving a calendar of a user to determine, for example, whether a message was created during business hours. Although Beguin describes both: 1) retrieving data for analysis (e.g., from data compilation module 202) such as the time/date of message creation, and 2) associating messages created outside specified working hours as being more closely related to personal messages, as discussed above, Beguin does not expressly disclose how module 122 retreives information regarding which hours constitute business hours. Accordingly, the Examiner introduces Rajan, also in the field of analyzing data with a computer, for teaching how to retrieve calendar data from a database. Final Act. 6-7. Although independent claims 8 and 15 share similarities with independent claim 1, there are some differences, discussed below, infra Secs. 2, 3. 1. Claims 1-4, 6, 7 Appellant advances three reasons for reversing the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. A. “selecting, by an operating system component of a computing device” Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding Beguin discloses the following limitations of claim 1: selecting, by an operating system component of a computing device, a first account at the remote storage service that is associated with the user and causing the file to be stored in the Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 9 first account when it is determined that the file comprises personal data; and selecting, by the operating system component of the computing device, a second account at the remote storage service that is associated with the user and causing the file to be stored in the second account when it is determined that the file comprises business data (“selecting, by an operating system component of a computing device” limitations). Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). In particular, Appellant argues that in Beguin, the selection as to which messaging account an email should be sent (e.g., which remote message server to store a message in) is made by an email client application, rather than by an operating system component of a computing device, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14-15. According to Appellant, Beguin’s email application is distinct from an operating system component of a computing device, namely, Beguin’s “‘operating system 116’ is shown as distinct from the messaging application 120 and the record contains no teaching or suggestion that any part of the operating system selects which messaging account to use.” Id. at 14. The Examiner responds that the term “operating system component of a computing device” is interpreted in view of the Specification, which discloses: The computing device 100 may also store one or more program modules, such as program module 111, which may be in the form of a stand-alone application, a productivity application, an operating system component or any other application or software module having features that interact with a user via one or more input devices. Ans. 7-8 (citing Spec. ¶ 25). In view of this disclosure, as well as additional evidence in the Specification, the Examiner finds that Beguin’s messaging Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 10 application 120 and messaging determination module 122 represent an operating system component. Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 25, 58, 87; Beguin, Fig. 2 (elements 120, 122)). Appellant replies that the Examiner misconstrues the Specification. Specifically, Appellant maps Beguin’s messaging application 120 to a stand- alone application, and argues that a stand-alone application is not an operating system component. Reply Br. 7. According to Appellant, the Specification does not equate a stand-alone application with an operating system component, but rather discloses that they each are examples of a program module. Id. (“An application program and an operation system component may both be examples of program modules but that does not mean they are the same”). Appellant argues, therefore, that the Examiner erred in finding Beguin’s messaging application 120 (e.g., a “stand-alone application,” according to Appellant) represents an operating system component. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. First, the Examiner does not equate a “stand-alone application” with “an operating system component,” as Appellant asserts. Indeed, nowhere does the Examiner refer to Beguin’s email messaging application 120 and messaging account determination module 122 as a “stand-alone application.” Ans. 7-8. Rather, the Examiner finds that Beguin’s messaging application and messaging account determination module represent Appellant’s claimed “operating system component.” Id. Accordingly, the Examiner treats Beguin’s messaging account determination module 122 as a “program module.” Id. Because the Specification expressly discloses that program modules may take the form of an operating system component (Spec. ¶ 25), the Examiner reasonably finds that Beguin’s “program module” may be in the form of an “operating system component.” Ans. 7-8. Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 11 We also are not persuaded by the argument that Beguin’s operating system 116 is depicted as distinct from messaging application 120 in Figure 1. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant’s argument conflates “operating system” with “operating system component,” and, moreover, assumes that the operating system component (recited in claim 1) must be depicted as included within a functional block labeled “operating system.” We disagree with Appellant’s assumption, because it directly contradicts the Specification’s disclosure, in which operating system 407 is shown as distinct from program module 111, even though program module 111 may be in the form of an operating system component. Spec., Fig. 4 (operating system 407, program module 111); id. ¶ 25 (disclosing program module 111 may be in the form of an operating system component). In other words, in the Specification, the operating system component is not necessarily located inside the “operating system” functional block, but may be conceptualized as being located inside “program module 111” that performs the function of selecting. Appellant further argues that using an operating system component to perform the selecting step provides potential advantages; however, Appellant cites nothing in the record to support this argument. Reply Br. 7. On the contrary, the evidence indicates no advantage to using an operating system component over other forms of program modules. The Specification does not indicate any preference for one form of program module over another (e.g., operating system component versus stand-alone application), or describe any advantage of one form over another. Spec. ¶ 25. Rather, the Specification presents the forms as a laundry list, essentially treating the forms as being interchangeable. Id. Moreover, the Specification is ambivalent as to what module performs the step of selecting a first and Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 12 second account. The Specification states that the operation can be implemented “at least in part, by an application, such as the server program module 105 and/or the program module 111, or some other program module.” Id. ¶ 51. In other words, according to the Specification, it does not matter what program module performs the selecting step, much less the form the module takes. Id. ¶¶ 25, 51. For the above reasons, the Specification does not indicate any patentable distinction between an application performing the selection versus and operating system component performing the selection. Id. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding the “selecting, by an operating system component of a computing device” limitations of claim 1. B. “remote storage service” Appellant makes the bare assertion that the evidence of record does not include substantial evidence to support the finding that Beguin teaches or suggests a “remote storage service” as claimed. Appeal Br. 13. However, Appellant does provide evidence or reasoning that supports this assertion. Id. Appellant states only that the Examiner acknowledges “Beguin does not explicitly teach a request to store a file within one of multiple accounts of the remote storage service.” Id. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the rejection presents extensive evidence and findings as to why Beguin, in view of the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan, teaches a “remote storage service”: Beguin does not explicitly teach a request to store a file within one of multiple accounts of the remote storage service. However, Beguin teaches (receives a request to send a message. Beguin, Fig. 9 Block 902) (based at least in part on the Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 13 determined confidence level, selects one of the plurality of message accounts to send the message. Beguin, Col. 13 lines 40- 42) (users may have several messaging accounts. For example, the user may have a work email account, a personal email account, a home business email account, and so forth. Beguin, Col. 1 lines 51-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beguin and consider the message servers (Fig. 1 elements 128) as a remote storage services where different messages or emails can be stored there, from multiple accounts that have the same domain, upon sending and receiving, since the same functionality is achieved. Final Act. 5-6 (emphasis in original). Appellant does not address this evidence and these findings, much less explain why they fail to support the finding that Beguin, in view of the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan, teaches the claimed “remote storage service.” A bare assertion that the Examiner’s findings lack substantial evidence is inadequate to rebut the Examiner’s findings. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding the “remote storage service” limitation of claim 1. C. Whether Rajan is Analogous Art Appellant argues that Rajan is non-analogous art. Appeal Br. 8-12. A reference must be from an analogous art to be available for use in a section 103(a) rejection. “Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a fact question.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Two criteria have evolved for answering the question: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 14 problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658-59 (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). Regarding the first prong, Appellant argues Rajan is “not from the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s application.” Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, the field of endeavor of the instant application is “classifying and separately storing user data.” Id. Appellant argues the field of endeavor of Rajan relates to blending and ranking information from multiple disparate sources by building a person-centric space for a person by cross-linking data from different spaces and applications. Id. (citing Rajan ¶¶ 3, 51). The Examiner finds the field of endeavor of the instant application relates to “analyzing data . . . to determine whether the data is to be uploaded to a first account associated with the user . . . or a second account associated with the user.” Ans. 5 (quoting Spec. ¶ 4).5 As to Rajan, the Examiner finds the field of endeavor relates to “analyzing data, classifying and organizing data, and collecting data from different sources while discovering relationships between the data.” Id. (citing Rajan ¶¶ 3, 86). First, we disagree with Appellant’s articulation of the field of endeavor of the instant application. To determine the applicable field of endeavor, the fact finder must consider “explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellant cites nothing to support its 5 The citation to the Specification in the Answer is to paragraph 5, but this appears to be in error, as the quote the Answer cites appears in paragraph 4 of the Specification. Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 15 position that the field of endeavor is “classifying and separately storing user data,” and we find no support in the instant application. Appeal Br. 9. In contrast, the Examiner’s articulation of the field of endeavor is better supported by the record. First, the title of the application is “Analyzing Data to Determine an Upload Account.” Second, the “Summary” section of the application states “[t]echnologies are described herein for analyzing data to determine an upload account.” Spec. ¶ 5. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “analyzing” data and selecting “a first account” or “second account” at a remote storage service and causing a file to be stored in the selected account. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the field of endeavor of the instant application relates to analyzing data to determine an upload account. As to Rajan’s field of endeavor, both the Examiner’s and Appellant’s articulation finds support, but the two are not mutually exclusive. For example, Rajan’s title is “Methods, Systems and Techniques for Ranking Blended Content Retrieved from Multiple Disparate Sources.” Rajan [54]. Moreover, in the “Background” section, under the subheading “Technical Field,” Rajan discloses “[t]he present teaching generally relates to organizing, retrieving, presenting, and utilizing information.” Rajan ¶ 3. Rajan further states, “Specifically, the present teaching relates to methods and systems for blending and ranking information from multiple disparate sources including user’s personal data sources and non-personal data sources.” Id. In addition, claim 1 of Rajan recites “a method, implemented on at least one computing device each of which has at least one processor, storage, and a communication platform connected to a network for ranking content.” Rajan, col. 20 (claims 1). Accordingly, based on the disclosure of Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 16 the instant application, we agree with Appellant that Rajan relates to blending and ranking information from multiple disparate sources. However, we also agree with the Examiner that Rajan relates to analyzing data. Ans. 5. Our reviewing court has instructed that the fact finder must consider each reference’s disclosure in view of the “the reality of the circumstances,” and “weigh those circumstances from the vantage point of the common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. Here, although the term “analyzing data” does not appear ipsis verbis in Beguin’s title, “Technical Field” section, or claims, we agree with the Examiner that Rajan’s “ranking” involves analyzing data. Ans. 5 (citing Rajan ¶¶ 3, 86). Indeed, claim 1 of Rajan recites that the method of ranking involves obtaining data sets, applying a model to data sets to obtain feature sets, normalizing feature sets, and estimating a score for each piece of content based on the normalized feature set. Rajan, col. 20 (claim 1). Clearly, this method involves analyzing data. Also, as found by the Examiner, Rajan discloses retrieving calendar data, and analyzing such data in order to determine data to store in a person-centric database. Ans. 5 (citing Rajan ¶¶ 3, 86). Therefore, substantial evidence supports the finding that Rajan, like the instant application, relates to analyzing data to determine an upload account. We note that Appellant attempts to distinguish between the instant application’s and Rajan’s approach to analyzing data to determine an upload account. Appeal Br. 9 (arguing that the instant application starts with person-centric data and endeavors to split the data into two different categories for separate storage, whereas Rajan starts with disparate sources of data and endeavors to build person-centric space by blending and cross- Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 17 linking data). However, this argument does not relate to a field of endeavor, but rather alleges a particular problem with which the instant application is involved in analyzing data (e.g., starting with person-centric data and splitting them into two categories). Therefore, this argument is more appropriately directed to the second prong of the analogous art test. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 9-12 (in which Appellant applies essentially the same argument to the second prong). For the foregoing reasons, we find that the instant application and Rajan are in the same field of endeavor, and therefore, are analogous art. Having found the art is analogous based on the first prong of the analogous art test, we need not and do not consider the second prong. D. Rationale to Combine Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part: obtaining calendar data from a calendar of a user; analyzing at least a portion of the file and the calendar data to determine whether the file comprises personal data or business data, wherein the portion of the file comprises a time and a date of creation of the file and the analyzing at least the portion of the file and the calendar data comprises identifying an event indicated in the calendar data at the same time and date of creation of the file. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.). The Examiner shows that Beguin, in view of the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan, sufficiently teaches these claim recitations. Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 10-11. Significantly, Beguin discloses analyzing at least a portion of a file (e.g., an email message) and data (e.g., the time and date at which the email is created) to determine whether the email is personal or business email. Ans. 10-11 (citing Beguin Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 18 7:8-15). In particular, Beguin discloses “messages 126 created outside of working hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. local time may be associated more closely with message accounts used for personal email.” Beguin 7:8-15. This technique is the same technique disclosed in the Specification, in which the system analyzes whether data is personal or business-related depending on the time the data is created, and more specifically, depending on whether at the time the person was (according to calendar data) in a business meeting or personal meeting. Spec. ¶ 30. Although Beguin does not explicitly disclose that the data used to determine whether the email is created during business hours is retrieved from a calendar, the Examiner finds that it was well known that this type of information can be stored or represented in a user calendar. Ans. 10. Based on these findings, Beguin, in view of the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan, is sufficient to show obviousness. “A suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art, as the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references . . . . The test for an implicit showing is what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). To the extent the Examiner introduces Rajan, it is for the purpose of evidencing what was known in the art, namely that calendar data may be retrieved from a database. Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 10-11 (citing Rajan ¶¶ 78, 86). We do not find that Rajan was necessary to show that an artisan in the relevant field of endeavor would have known that calendar data could be Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 19 retrieved from a database, as taught in Rajan, in order to obtain information about times that constitute business hours, as taught by Beguin. However, we find no error in the Examiner’s use of Rajan as evidence of what was well known in the art. Appellant argues that the rejection “does not contain a legally sufficient rationale for combining” Beguin with Rajan. Appeal Br. 16-17. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s rationale is conclusory, and utilizes the following boilerplate structure: “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to modify [First Reference] to obtain [Claim Features not found in First Reference]. One would be motivated to do so, to [features of Second Reference].” Id. (brackets in original). Appellant argues that this sort of statement does not sufficiently provide a rationale to combine reference. Id. at 17. Appellant also argues that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Beguin and Rajan. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant’s argument essentially is that Beguin seeks to keep emails separate, by selecting which account an email should be sent to (e.g., a personal email account or a business email account), whereas Rajan seeks to take personal information (e.g., emails) from private person-centric and public person- centric databases, and blend (cross-link) them together to create a single person-centric database. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As we discussed above, the Examiner does not merely apply boilerplate language, but rather presents a reasoned rationale supported by evidence that Beguin, in view of the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan, teaches the claim recitations at issue. Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 9-11. As to Appellant’s argument that Rajan and Beguin differ in that the former seeks to blend information and the latter Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 20 seeks to separate emails, this is inapposite in view of the limited purpose for which Rajan is introduced. As we discussed above, Beguin provides sufficient rationale for retrieving and analyzing calendar data, namely in order to determine whether an email was created during business hours. Beguin 7:8-15. E. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of claims 2-4, 6, and 7. 2. Claims 8-12, 14 As to claim 8, for reasons discussed below, Appellant’s arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate Examiner error. A. “select, by an operating system component of the computer” Claim 8 recites a limitation similar to the “selecting, by an operating system component of a computing device” limitations recited in claim 1. Claim 8 recites, in pertinent part: select, by an operating system component of the computer, the personal account of the user or the business account of the user based on classification of the file as personal data or business data. Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.). Appellant presents the same evidence and arguments as for claim 1. Id. at 18-21. For the same reasons we discussed above for claim 1, supra Sec. 1.A, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 21 B. Claim 8 as a Whole Appellant argues that the record fails to show that the invention claim 8 recites was considered as a whole. Appeal Br. 20. In support of this argument, Appellant reiterates its arguments for the “selecting, by an operating system component” and “remote storage device” claim recitations, arguing that claim 8 requires a particular part of the computer to perform selecting, and stores the selected file(s) in a specific type of storage location. Id. For the reasons we discussed above, supra Secs. 1.A-1.B, Appellant’s arguments do not demonstrate Examiner error. C. Rationale to Combine Beguin with Elliot Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided sufficient rationale to combine Beguin with Elliot. Appeal Br. 21-22. Claim 8 relates to analyzing data (i.e., one or more of calendar data, organizational data, or contact data) to classify a file as personal data or business data, and storing the file either in a personal account or business account of a user based on the classification. The Examiner relies primarily on Beguin for teaching claim 8. Final Act. 11-13. However, claim 8 includes an additional limitation that recites: identify one or more individuals to share the file with based, at least in part, on content of the file and one or more of the calendar data, organizational data, or contact data. Id. at 34 (Claims App.). For this limitation, the Examiner relies on Elliot’s teaching of a sharing system that determines one or more users associated with a social event, and sharing files with them. Id. at 13 (citing Elliott ¶ 82). The Examiner finds that a skilled artisan would have modified Beguin to identify one or more individuals with whom to share the message. Id. According to the Examiner, a skilled artisan would have been motivated Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 22 to do so in order to define privacy rules and indicate whether content is publicly available to all visitors or whether it can be shared through a specific group of friends or connected members. Id. (citing Elliott ¶ 3). More specifically, as found by the Examiner, Beguin teaches identifying the email account to which a message (i.e., file) is to be sent (i.e., shared). Ans. 14 (citing Beguin, Fig. 7, 12:61-66). The evidence of record supports this finding. For example, Figure 5 of Beguin illustrates an example in which Winston prepares two emails to send to Frank, one with the subject “Lease Proposal,” and the other with the subject “BBQ.” Beguin, Fig. 5, 9:63-10:12. Frank has two message accounts, one personal (FRANKANDEL@B.COM) and one business (F@C.GOV). Id. at Fig. 5. Messaging account determination module 120 determines whether each message is business-related or personal. Id. at 9:63--10:27. As also found by the Examiner, Beguin teaches that messaging account determination module 122 analyzes the file (email message) and calendar data, organizational data, or contact data in classifying the file as personal or business. Final Act. 11-12. Specifically, Beguin teaches using contact data such as an email address destination. Id. at 11; Ans. 14-15; Beguin, Fig. 7, 12:61-66. As such, the Examiner finds that Beguin teaches the limitations of claim 8 involving classifying the file and selecting the account in which to store the file. Final Act. 11-13; Ans. 14. The Examiner explains that all that is missing is identifying an individual with whom to share the file, based on the same type of information used to classify the data as personal or business and select a storage account based on whether it is personal or business. Ans. 14. Accordingly, Elliott is relied upon by the Examiner for a limited purpose, namely that the file analysis, disclosed in Beguin, could be used to specify an individual to send the email message to. Id. Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 23 As with claim 1, here Appellant argues the Examiner’s rationale to combine is nothing more than a boilerplate statement, and therefore, is insufficient. Appeal Br. 21. Appellant also argues that the problem Beguin solves, namely determining which user message account (e.g., personal or business) to store a user’s message, is unrelated to the motivation the Examiner gives for the combination, i.e., to define privacy rules and indicate whether content is publicly available to all visitors or whether it can be shared through a specific group of friends or contact members. Id. at 22. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As we discussed above, the Examiner provides a reasoned rationale for combining Beguin and Elliot, supported with evidence, wherein the rationale is more than just the application of boilerplate language. Final Act. 17-20; Ans. 13-15. As to Appellant’s argument that the problem addressed by Beguin is unrelated to defining privacy rules, the Examiner clarifies the rationale to combine in the Answer, which provides a reasoned rationale that is supported with evidence, as discussed above. Ans. 13-15. Appellant does not sufficiently rebut this rationale in the Reply Brief, arguing, without explaining, that the Examiner’s rationale “describes a potential result of the combination not a motivation for making the combination.” Reply Br. 9. We disagree with Appellant’s characterization, which is based only on a one sentence excerpt of the Examiner’s three-page discussion of the rationale to combine. Ans. 13-15; Reply Br. 9. D. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 8, as well as the rejections of claims 9-12 and 14. 3. Claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25 Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 24 As to claim 15, for reasons discussed below, Appellant’s arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate Examiner error. A. “select, by an operating system component of the computer” Claim 15 recites a limitation similar to the “selecting, by an operating system component of a computing device” limitations recited in claim 1. Claim 15 recites, in pertinent part: select, by an operating system component of the computer, the account of the remote storage service from at least a personal account of the user on the remote storage service and a business account of the user on the remote storage service based at least in part on classification of the document as personal data or business data Appeal Br. 36 (Claims App.). Appellant presents the same evidence and arguments as for claim 1. Id. at 23-24. For the same reasons we discussed above for claim 1, supra Sec. 1.A, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. B. Claim 15 as a Whole Appellant argues that the record fails to show that the invention claim 15 recites was considered as a whole. Appeal Br. 25. In connection with this argument, Appellant essentially reiterates its arguments for the “selecting, by an operating system component” and “remote storage device” claim recitations, arguing that claim 15 requires a particular part of the computer to perform selecting, and stores the selected file(s) in a specific type of storage location. Id. For the reasons we discussed above, supra Secs. 1.A-1.B, Appellant’s arguments do not demonstrate Examiner error. Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 25 C. “identify one or more individuals to share a document with based, at least in part, on the type of document and other users who have created documents with the same content” Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown Elliott teaches or suggests the limitation “identify one or more individuals to share the document with based, at least in part, on the type of document and other users who have created documents with the same content.” Appeal Br. 26- 28. Specifically, although Elliott teaches a variety of techniques for identifying individuals with whom to share a document, Appellant argues the Examiner has not presented substantial evidence showing that Elliott teaches that the identification is based, at least in part, on the type of document and other users who have created documents with the same content. Id. at 28. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner presents substantial evidence in support of their findings. First, as the Examiner points out, Beguin teaches selecting where to store files based on document type, because Beguin discloses analyzing a file extension, wherein the file extension is indicative of document type. Ans. 16-17. Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner cites evidence sufficient to support the finding that Elliott teaches using the type of document and other users who have created documents with the same content. For example, the Examiner cites paragraphs 13, 15, 17, and 18 of Elliot, and explains why Elliott teaches the limitation at issue. Ans. 17. Appellant does not sufficiently rebut the Examiner’s findings. Specifically, in the Reply Brief Appellant states that the Appeal Brief explains, at pages 27-28, why Elliot’s disclosure is insufficient. Reply Br. 8. However, the cited portions of the Appeal Brief do not adequately explain why the Examiner’s findings are insufficient. Rather, the Appeal brief merely quotes portions of Elliot, Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 26 and concludes this disclosure does not teach or suggest the claim language, without further explanation. Appeal Br. 27-28. Moreover, the Appeal Brief does not substantively address the Examiner’s findings in the Answer. Reply Br. 8; Ans. 17. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding Beguin teaches the limitation “identify one or more individuals to share the document with based, at least in part, on the type of document and other users who have created documents with the same content.” D. Rationale to Combine Beguin with Kapczynski Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided sufficient rationale to combine Beguin with Kapczynski. Appeal Br. 29-30. Pertinent to this argument, claim 15 recites causing a computer to: 1) “obtain a request to store a document in an account of a remote storage service”; 2) “extract a document structure from the document, wherein the document structure indicates a type of document”; 3) “obtain . . . other data associated with a user”: and 4) “classify the document as personal data or business data based, at least in part, on the type of document and the other data.” Id. at 36 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Beguin teaches these limitations, except that Beguin does not explicitly disclose how to determine document type. Final Act. 17-18. The Examiner relies on Kapczynski for teaching of extracting a document structure from a document, wherein the document structure indicates a type of document. Id. at 18-20. Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Beguin with Kapczynski, because Beguin relates to selecting one of multiple locations (i.e., message accounts) to store data, whereas Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 27 Kapczynski relates to storing data in a single location (i.e., a single source for storing personal data). Appeal Br. 29. Appellant’s attempt to distinguish Beguin from Kapczynski is unavailing because this alleged distinction is not relevant to whether a skilled artisan would have looked to Kapczynski for details as to how to extract a document structure from a document. As found by the Examiner, Beguin teaches analyzing message attributes in order to determine which email messaging account to select, wherein message attributes include an attached file having an extension associated with a document structure and type. Ans. 18 (citing Beguin, Fig. 7, 12:61-66). In other words, Beguin already teaches analyzing an attached file having an extension, wherein it was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that a file extension is associated with a document structure and type. Beguin does not explicitly disclose how to extract the document type from the file extension; therefore, Kapczynski is introduced as evidence of what was well known in the art. Final Act. 17-20; Ans. 17-20. The Examiner finds that, in light of Beguin’s teaching of analyzing message attributes in order to determine the message account to which an email should be sent, as well as Beguin’s teaching an attached file with a file extension as a message attribute for analysis, it would have been obvious to also extract document structure and type from Beguin’s file extension, in view of Kapczynski’s teaching that such information is useful in organizing data. Ans. 19-20. Given the limited purpose for which the Examiner relies on Kapczynski, and the manner in which the Examiner combines it with Beguin, we are not persuaded by the distinction Appellant argues between how the references store data. Appeal 2021-001079 Application 15/600,619 28 D. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 15, as well as the rejections of claims 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, and 25. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 6 103 Beguin, Rajan 1-3, 6 4, 7 103 Beguin, Rajan, Elliot 4, 7 8-12, 14 103 Beguin, Elliot 8-12, 14 15, 16, 18, 23 103 Beguin, Kapczynski, Elliot 15, 16, 18, 23 19, 20, 25 103 Beguin, Kapczynski, Elliot 19, 20, 25 Overall Outcome 1-4, 6-12, 14-16, 18- 20, 23, 25 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED