Motorola Mobility LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 28, 20212020002756 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021) 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. 15/611,409 06/01/2017 Amit Kumar Agrawal MM920170087-US-NP 9473 138602 7590 06/28/2021 FIG. 1 Patents 116 W. Pacific Avenue Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99201 EXAMINER MCBETH, WILLIAM C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2449 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2021 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): Fig1Docket@fig1patents.com docketing.mobility@motorola.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AMIT KUMAR AGRAWAL and SOUMYA RANJAN MUND ____________ Appeal 2020-002756 Application 15/611,409 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2020-002756 Application 15/611,409 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–3, 5–14, and 16–22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “a chat management system that provides chat conversation functionality” that “monitors a group chat conversation and automatically places the group chat conversation in mute mode or snooze mode” based “upon various contextual conditions.” Abstract. Claims 1, 12, and 16 are independent; independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method, comprising: monitoring, using a chat management system, a group chat conversation; detecting, using the chat management system, one or more contextual conditions associated with the group chat conversation, wherein one contextual condition pertains to a user manually dismissing a notification associated with the group chat conversation; and responsive to one or more detected contextual conditions, automatically snoozing, using the chat management system, the group chat conversation, wherein said snoozing turns off 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Motorola Mobility LLC as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2020-002756 Application 15/611,409 3 audible notifications and visual notifications for the group chat conversation. Appeal Br. 14. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is the following: Name Reference Date Winston US 2015/0334069 A1 Nov. 19, 2015 Bhagwat US 2015/0332168 A1 Nov. 19, 2015 Ghafourifar US 2016/0112358 A1 Apr. 21, 2016 Busch US 2018/0217429 A1 Aug. 2, 2018 Dunne US 2018/0255013 A1 Sept. 6, 2018 Anonymous, “A mechanism to dynamically turn off/on the notification on user behaviors in group chat” (Jan. 22, 2017) REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1–3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne and Winston. Final Act. 4. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne, Winston, and Anonymous. Final Act. 16. Claims 9, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne, Winston, and Busch. Final Act. 19. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne, Winston, and Bhagwat. Final Act. 22. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne, Winston, and Ghafourifar. Final Act. 24. Appeal 2020-002756 Application 15/611,409 4 ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Dunne is combinable with Winston. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office Action, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived.). Appellant argues that “the intended purpose in Dunne is that, in a group chat session, messages with certain topics can be suppressed, while at the same time, messages pertaining to other topics can be received by the user” (Appeal Br. 9, citing Dunne ¶¶ 10, 16). Appellant contends that the “proposed modification to Dunne cited in the Office Action is to modify Dunne ‘to automatically suppress both audible and visual message notifications for the group chat as taught by Winston’” (Appeal Br. 10, quoting Final Act. 6, 11, 14). In sum, Appellant argues that [i]f Dunne were to be modified to turn off audible notifications and visual notifications for the group chat conversation as suggested in the Office Action, the intended purpose of Dunne of suppressing messages with certain topics while at the same time allowing messages pertaining to other topics to be received by the user would be frustrated. Thus, modifying Dunne as described in the Office Action would render Dunne unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, so there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification Appeal 2020-002756 Application 15/611,409 5 (Appeal Br. 10). Appellant similarly argues that “modifying Dunne as described in the Office Action would change a principle of operation of Dunne” (Appeal Br. 13). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, as Appellant incorrectly assumes that the rejection implies the “group chat as taught by Winston” is part of the modification of Dunne. It is not. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that modifying the method of Dunne to explicitly suppress both audible and visual notifications, as suggested by Winston, enhances the intended purpose of Dunne by clarifying the types of notifications that are suppressed (Final Act. 3 (emphasis in original deleted, current emphasis added)). Additionally, both the Final Rejection and the Answer make clear that the sole teaching from Winston taken by one skilled in the art in the modification of Dunne is the explicit suppression of both audible and visual notifications, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, that applying a known technique (suspension of both audio and visual types of notifications) to known devices and/or methods (a method for managing message notifications) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (automatic suspension of both audible and visual message notifications for the group chat based on the actions of the user) (Final Act. 6, citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (emphases in original deleted, current emphasis added); see also Ans. 6). “The 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 teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Appeal 2020-002756 Application 15/611,409 6 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.”); and 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.”). Rather, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). When the combined teachings of Dunne and Winston are viewed properly, Winston’s teaching of suppression of both audio and visual notifications is an enhancement to Dunne as it “clarifi[es] the types of notifications that are suppressed” (Final Act. 3), and Dunne is not rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose; similarly the combination does not change the principle of operation of Dunne. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 12 and 16 not separately argued, and all dependent claims not separately argued. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Dunne is combinable with Winston. DECISION In summary: Appeal 2020-002756 Application 15/611,409 7 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Ba sis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16– 18, 20 103 Dunne, Winston 1–3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16– 18, 20 6, 7 103 Dunne, Winston, Anonymous 6, 7 9, 13, 19 103 Dunne, Winston, Busch 9, 13, 19 11 103 Dunne, Winston, Bhagwat 11 21, 22 103 Dunne, Winston, Ghafourifar 21, 22 OVERALL OUTCOME 1–3, 5– 14, 16–22 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation