Ex Parte Cai et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2012

11018267 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/018,267 12/21/2004 Yigang Cai 42-8-9 1833
7590 03/28/2012
WERNER ULRICH
501 FOREST AVENUE, UNIT 406
GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137-4175
EXAMINER
SHINGLES, KRISTIE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte YIGANG CAI, SHEHRYAR S. QUTUB, and
ALOK SHARMA
________________

Appeal 2010-002710
Application 11/018,267
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before THOMAS S. HAHN, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
ANDREW CALDWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002710
Application 11/018,267

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-6. These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Lin (US 7,051,077 B2; issued May 23, 2006) in
view of Chadwick (US 7,320,020 B2; issued Jan. 15, 2008).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe their invention as follows:
In telecommunications network, a method and apparatus for
blocking unwanted messages (spam). A centralized anti-spam
network server is used to access data for customized anti-spam
services for individual networks and the source and destination
terminals of a requested connection. The class of anti-spam
service can include, for example, message subject or message
content to allow particular types of messages to be blocked.
Advantageously, the individual customers and individual
networks can perform different levels and different types of
spam filtration to meet their needs.
(Abstract).

CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS
Claims 1 and 4
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of this group:
1. In a telecommunications network a method of providing
for the blocking of unwanted communications (spam) tailored
to the needs of an individual customer comprising the steps of:
responsive to receipt of a connection request to said
individual customer, requesting information concerning said
request and said individual customer from an anti-spam
network server;
Appeal 2010-002710
Application 11/018,267

3
said anti-spam network server, responsive to said request,
determining a class of anti-spam processing actions to be
performed for the connection to said individual customer
specified by said request;
performing the anti-spam actions specified by said server
on said requested connection prior to completing said
connection; and
blocking said connection if the result of said anti-spam
processing actions indicate that the requested message is to be
treated as spam.
The Examiner finds that Lin discloses all but two of the limitations of
claims 1 and 4 (Ans. 4). One limitation found to be missing from Lin is
“determining a class of anti-spam processing actions to be performed for the
connection to said individual customer specified by said request” (id. (citing
claim 1)). The Examiner further finds that Chadwick discloses the missing
limitations, though, and that motivation existed to combine the references’
teachings (id.). Appellants contend that Chadwick fails to disclose the
above-noted limitation, asserting that Chadwick only discloses examination
of content – not a class of anti-spam processing actions (App. Br. 5-7). The
Examiner responds that Chadwick teaches filtering methods that are based
not only on content using keywords, but also on black-list and white-list
validations (Ans. 5-6 (citing Chadwick, col. 9, ll. 41-52; col. 9, l. 61 – col.
10, l. 35)).
Claims 2 and 5
Claim 2 is illustrative of this group:
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:
determining anti-spam processing actions to be
performed for communications terminating on a destination
network serving said individual customer; and
Appeal 2010-002710
Application 11/018,267

4
performing any additional anti-spam processing actions
required by said destination network.
Appellants cite three passages from Lin and Chadwick (App. Br. 7-8),
and they contend “that none of these passages teach modifying the process
of identifying spam by the identity of the destination network” (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner, in turn, cites various passages of Lin to support the
conclusion “that additional spam detection and filtering techniques are
employed and applied by Lin’s system in efforts [sic: to] modify and fine
tune the system” or network, as opposed to filtering performed for the
destination terminal (Ans. 6 (citing Lin, col. 6, ll. 23-28 and 35-41; col. 4, ll.
59-66; col. 8, ll. 24-40; col. 9, ll. 24-30; and col. 10, ll. 24-37)).
Claims 3 and 6
Claim 3 is illustrative of this group:
3. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:
determining anti-spam processing actions to be
performed for communications originating on an originating
network serving a caller of said connection; and
performing additional anti-spam processing actions
required by said originating network.
Appellants contend that Chadwick “do[es] not teach modifying the
spam filtering process in accordance with data associated with the source
network” (App. Br. 8-9). The Examiner responds that Lin – not Chadwick –
is being relied upon for this teaching (Ans. 7 (citing Lin, col. 7, ll. 64- col. 8,
l. 35; col. 8, ll. 3-8, and 30-35; col. 10, ll. 34-37)). Appellants do not contest
Lin’s teachings with respect to claims 3 and 6 (see App. Br. 8-9).

Appeal 2010-002710
Application 11/018,267

5
ANALYSIS
We disagree with the Appellants’ contentions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which the appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 is 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

rwk