Ex Parte Cai et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2012

11018269 (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.
11/018,269 12/21/2004 Yigang Cai 38-4-5 1836
40984 7590 03/29/2012
WERNER ULRICH
434 MAPLE STREET
GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137-3826
EXAMINER
SHINGLES, KRISTIE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2012 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 2010-002711
Application 11/018,269
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002711
Application 11/018,269

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-8:
Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Banister (US 7,219,131 B2; issued May 15, 2007).
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Banister in view of Rounthwaite (US 7,219,148 B2; issued
May 15, 2007).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants explain that their invention is a method for detecting spam
email messages:
It is not the purpose of Applicants’ invention to teach new spam
detection rules. Rather . . . the purpose [is] to teach how spam
detection rules can be implemented most effectively in order to
accomplish the somewhat conflicting goals of blocking most
spam messages, transmitting non-spam messages quickly, and
detecting new spam situations quickly.
(Br. 9-10 (citing Spec. 7:29 to 8:2)).
The method entails subjecting a message to an initial detection
process that is fast, and if this fast process indicates that a message may be
spam, then subjecting the message to a more thorough or deep process (id.).
“The fast process uses rules and data tables, whereas the deep process
analyzes message content” (id.). This two-tier process is intended to
minimize delay and use a minimum of processor resources (id.).
Appeal 2010-002711
Application 11/018,269

3
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. In a telecommunications network a method of
detecting unwanted messages (spam) comprising the steps of:
transmitting messages to a spam detection system;
receiving a message in a fast process system of said spam
detection system, said fast process system using rules and data
tables to determine whether said message is spam or non-spam;
if it is determined in said fast process system that said
message is non-spam, sending said message toward a
destination;
if it is determined in said fast process system that said
message may be spam, sending said message to a deep process
for analyzing message content;
based on analysis by said deep process of said message
content, determining whether said message is spam; and
if said message may be spam, blocking said message
from being transmitted toward a destination.

CONTENTIONS
Appellants acknowledge that Banister teaches multiple filtering steps
that include filtering by both rules and content (Br. 10-12). Appellants
contend, though, that Banister contains “no indication of Appellants’
essential contribution, the separation of the fast process and the deep
process, wherein the deep process analyzes message content” (Br. 13).

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. While Banister generally
discloses a multi-stage filtering process that includes filtering by rules and
content, the passages cited by the Examiner do not indicate that Banister
discloses the following specific details of claim 1. The cited passages do not
Appeal 2010-002711
Application 11/018,269

4
indicate that the process of filtering with rules and tables will be relatively
faster than the process of analyzing message content. The cited passages
also do not indicate that the process of analyzing message content will be
undertaken only on the condition that the faster process of using rules and
data tables determines that a message may be spam.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim or of independent
claim 5, which has similar claim language.
With respect to the remaining rejection of dependent claims 2-4 and
6-8, the Examiner does not rely on Rounthwaite to cure the deficiencies of
Banister, explained above. For the reasons discussed above, then, we
likewise do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2-4 and 6-8.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 is reversed.
REVERSED

rwk