Ex Parte Biswas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2016

13628146 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/628,146 09/27/2012
10949 7590 08/22/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Debmalya BISW AS
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.
042933/454461 4539
EXAMINER
SPIELER, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEBMAL YA BISW AS and GIAN PAOLO PERRUCCI
Appeal2015-003684
Application 13/628,146
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLL. SILVERMAN, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and SCOTT E.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention relates to deleting a user's data across different
services and platforms based on contextual selection criteria. Abstract;
1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2015-003684
Application 13/628,146
Spec. iii! 1-2. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, which is
illustrative of the invention, reads:
1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/ or
processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least
one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least
one signal based, at least in part, on the following:
at least one determination of at least one request to delete
data associated with at least one user, the request specifying at
least in part one or more contextual parameters;
at least one determination of one or more data records
associated with the at least one user from one or more services,
one or more applications, or a combination thereof,
a processing of the one or more data records to determine
contextual metadata associated with the one or more data
records, the contextual metadata includes time-based contextual
metadata, activity-based contextual metadata, or a combination
thereof, and
a deletion of the one or more data records based, at least
in part, on whether the data at least substantially meet the one
or more contextual parameters.
App. Br. 18 (emphasis added).
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
or (e) as anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sammon (US 2012/0023128 Al; pub. Jan. 26, 2012).
Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2015-003684
Application 13/628,146
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sammon and Miranda-Steiner (US 2013/0129142 Al;
May 23, 2013). Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments which Appellants
could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 1 and 11
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Sammon discloses the
determination of one or more data records associated with the at least one
user "from one or more services, one or more applications, or a combination
thereof," as recited in claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).
Specifically, Appellants contend Sammon's "file system" or database, cited
by the Examiner as disclosing the disputed limitation, Ans. 8-9, is not a
"service" as recited in the claims. App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by this
argument, and discern no error in the Examiner's findings regarding the
disputed limitation.
First, although Appellants' brief, App. Br. 18, 20, implies that
"service" must be an "online service," the claims as written do not require
the service be online. Appellants' Specification cites "network services" and
"online services," but only as an "example" or "[o]ne area of interest."
3
Appeal2015-003684
Application 13/628,146
Spec. if 1. The claims recite "services," not "online services." App. Br. 18.
Giving "services" its broadest reasonable interpretation, In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004), we find the record
supports the Examiner's finding that the database query system of Sammon
discloses one or more "services." See Ans. 8-9; Sammon iii! 46, 54---60.
In addition, the claims require "one or more services, one or more
applications, or a combination thereof." App. Br. 18 (emphasis added).
Disclosure of an application, therefore, would obviate the need for
disclosure of a service. The Examiner finds the database of Sammon also
"can be interpreted as an 'application,"' Ans. 9, and Appellants do not argue
that finding is erroneous.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1and11under35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) as anticipated by Sammon,
and the alternative rejection of the same claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sammon.
Claims 3 and 13
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Sammon discloses "a
processing of sensor information ... to cause, at least in part, a generation of
the contextual metadata," as recited in dependent claims 3 and 13. App. Br.
11-12. The Examiner finds this element in Sammon paragraphs 51 and 5 5.
Ans. 11. On the record before us, we discern no error in the Examiner's
finding.
In the Answer, the Examiner cites several examples demonstrating
Sammon' s disclosure. For instance, the Examiner finds Sammon paragraph
51 discloses extracting tags (contextual metadata) from GPS location data
(sensor information). Id. Additionally, paragraph 55 discloses the database
4
Appeal2015-003684
Application 13/628,146
including date information (contextual metadata) for photographs (such
metadata gleaned from sensor information, paragraph 51 ). Id. Contrary to
Appellants' argument, App. Br. 11, in each instance, the "contextual
metadata" disclosed in Sammon is "caused," at least indirectly, by
processing sensor information. Ans. 11 (citing Sammon i-f 51 (disclosing
processing sensor information to embed tags "in the files themselves when
the files were originally created")).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) as anticipated by Sammon, and the
alternative rejection of the same claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sammon
Claims 5 and 15
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Sammon discloses "a
transmission of the request to the one or more services, the one or more
applications; or a combination thereof;" as recited in claims 5 and 15. App.
Br. 11-12. The Examiner finds this element in Sammon paragraph 54,
which discloses a user able to "input [transmit] any combination of query
terms [request] into the database [service or application], so that the
database may perform the corresponding task." Ans. 11 (emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner's finding. As discussed above, we find the
database of Sammon constitutes a "service" or "application" as recited in the
claims. See supra. Appellants do not argue that "input" as disclosed in
Sammon differs from "transmission" as recited in the claim. App. Br. 11-
12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) as anticipated by Sammon, and the
5
Appeal2015-003684
Application 13/628,146
alternative rejection of the same claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sammon
Claims 6 and 16
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims
6 and 16 for the same reasons as their base claims 1 and 11, respectively, "as
well as for the additional features these claims recite." App. Br. 14.
Appellants' argument regarding these claims consists of a quotation of the
claim language, followed by the conclusion "it is apparent that Sammon
neither discloses nor suggests the features of the claimed invention." App.
Br. 15. This conclusory statement is insufficient to demonstrate error in the
Examiner's findings. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sammon and Miranda-Steiner.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not argue any of the remammg dependent claims
separately from independent claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejections of remaining claims 2, 4, 7-10, 11, 12, 14, and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) as anticipated by Sammon, and the alternative
rejection of the same claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sammon.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are AFFIRMED.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
6
Appeal2015-003684
Application 13/628,146
AFFIRMED
7