Ex Parte Chande et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2016

12388175 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/388, 175 02/18/2009
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
03/10/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Suresh Balakrishnan Chande
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.
P3057USOO 1997
EXAMINER
WINDER, PATRICE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SURESH BALAKRISHNAN CHANDE,
SRIVIDY A GOP ALAN, and SWETHA KUR UP
Appeal2014-000432
Application 12/388, 175
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-13, 15, 16, and 18-23, all remaining claims of the application. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed February
13, 2013), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed October 1, 2013), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed August 1, 2013), the Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 23, 2012), and the original Specification
("Spec.," filed February 18, 2009).
Appeal2014-000432
Application 12/388, 175
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to "an apparatus, method and a computer
program product for providing services such as advertisements, coupons or
other targeted communications to certain selected active nodes." Spec. ,-r 2.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
remotely determining a distribution potential for a
particular node based on a weighted consideration of a plurality
of attributes related to activity or characteristics of the
particular node, the distribution potential being indicative of a
relative likelihood of the particular node distributing content
received by the particular node;
monitoring the activity or characteristics of the particular
node at the particular node; and
determining to select the particular node as an active
node in response to a determination that the distribution
potential meets predetermined selection criteria, wherein the
predetermined selection criteria includes at least one of a
desired audience associated with the particular node, the
likelihood of receiving a positive response to data forwarded
from the particular node, and the likelihood that the particular
node is likely to forward received data.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-13, 15, 16, 18-20, and 23 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ismalon (US 2009/0228296 Al; Sept. 10,
2009) and Amidon (US 7,698,380 Bl; Apr. 13, 2010). Final Act. 2-8.
2 The Examiner's Final Office Action includes cancelled claim 17 in the
heading for this rejection. Final Act. 2. However, cancelled claim 17 does
not appear in the body of the rejection and, hence, we find the Examiner's
typographic error to be harmless. We also note the Summary page of the
2
Appeal2014-000432
Application 12/388, 175
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ismalon, Amidon, and Lee (7 ,284,204 B2; Oct. 16, 2007). Final Act. 8-9.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ismalon, Amidon, and Stem (US 2003/0130862 Al; July 10, 2003). Final
Act. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants in the Briefs are
considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the
Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has
erred. App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2-3. We agree with, and adopt as our own,
the Examiner's findings and reasons as set forth in the Examiner's rejections
(Final Act. 2-10) and the Examiner's findings and reasons set forth in the
Answer (Ans. 2--4). We highlight specific arguments and findings for
emphasis as follows.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Amidon, in
combination with Ismalon, teaches "monitoring the activity or characteristics
of the particular node at the particular node." Final Act. 3 (citing Amidon
9:9-18 ("as clients distribute content, information about the distribution is
sent to the optimization server and stored in database 80")).
Appellants argue this disclosure of Amidon does not disclose the
recited monitoring step because "[t]he mere storage of information at a node
Final Office Action (Final Act. 1) incorrectly omits claims 21 and 22,
although the body of the action includes a rejection of these claims (Final
Act. 8-10). Again, we find this error to be harmless.
3
Appeal2014-000432
Application 12/388, 175
is substantially different from also monitoring activity or characteristics
about that node at that node." App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. We agree with the
Examiner that a client that records its own activities distributing content is
monitoring its activity as claimed. Ans. 2-3.
Appellants further argue "[t]he monitoring at the particular node in the
claimed subject matter is of the activity or characteristics related to a
'plurality of attributes,' a weighted consideration of which a remote
determination of a distribution potential for the particular node is based."
App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3.
We remain unpersuaded because the features Appellants argue
differentiate from the references are not in the claim. The "monitoring" step
recites monitoring "activity or characteristics" of the node. We agree with
the Examiner that there is no recitation of monitoring (at the node) activity
or characteristics "related to a 'pluralitv of attributes,"' (emphasis added) as
argued by Appellants (App. Br. 7), and that the claims do not recite
"'monitoring' according to specific characteristics of the interactions." Ans.
3--4. Further, we note Appellants' argument focuses on Amidon, whereas
the Examiner finds Ismalon teaches "remotely determining a distribution
potential for a particular node based on a weighted consideration of a
plurality of attributes related to activity or characteristics of the particular
node." Final Act. 2 (citing Ismalon 66).
In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1 and claims 2-13, 15, 16, 18-20, and
23, argued together with claim 1 (App. Br. 8).
4
Appeal2014-000432
Application 12/388, 175
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Appellants argue only that Lee and Stem
fail to cure the alleged deficiencies of the combination of Ismalon and
Amidon. App. Br. 8. For the reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded
of the alleged deficiencies of Ismalon and Amidon and, thus, we are
similarly unpersuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 21 and
22.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13, 15,
16, and 18-23.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-13,
15, 16, and 18-23 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5