Ex Parte Clarke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

13344919 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/344,919 01/06/2012
112594 7590 08/24/2016
BlackBerry Limited (CRGO Cases)
2200 University A venue East
Waterloo, ON N2K OA 7
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Frederick Harness CLARKE
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.
1400-00SU 7989
EXAMINER
AGUIAR, JOHNNY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
docketing@dimock.com
portfolioprosecution@blackberry.com
ptoboca@fggbb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL FREDERICK HARNESS CLARKE,
SANJA Y KAL Y ANASUNDARAM, and CAL VIN ROEX
Appeal2015-002267
Application 13/344,919
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-002267
Application 13/344,919
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a delivery and
management of status notifications for multiple message formats (Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A message status update method, comprising:
transmitting multiple different messages from a
communication device, each of the messages transmitted for
delivery to a corresponding recipient, the messages individually
being associated with a correspondingly different one of multiple
different messaging applications executing at the communication
device;
detecting, by a status agent executing at the
communication device and in communication with each of the
messaging applications, transmission of each of said messages;
transmitting, by the status agent for receipt by a status
service, an outbound message notification for each of said
messages thus transmitted;
receiving, by the status agent from the status service, a
status update message for multiple different ones of said
messages, each said status update message indicating delivery of
a corresponding one of said messages; and
notifying, by the status agent, different ones of said
messaging applications of delivery of a corresponding one of the
messages as indicated by a status update message for the
corresponding one of the messages.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Daigle
Roujinsky
Schmid
Cohen
US 2007/0143417 Al
US 2008/0219416 Al
US 2009/0172399 Al
US 2011/0060800 Al
2
June 21, 2007
Sept. 11, 2008
July 2, 2009
Mar. 10, 2011
Appeal2015-002267
Application 13/344,919
Hutchinson US 2011/0238861 Al Sept. 29, 2011
REJECTIONS 1
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of
co-pending Application No. 13/344,359 (hereinafter "'359 application") in
view of Cohen (Final Act. 4--8).
Claims 1, 4, and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cohen and Schmid (Final Act. 9-16).
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 12-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cohen, Schmid, and Daigle (Final Act. 16-32).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cohen, Schmid, and Hutchinson (Final Act. 32-33).
Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cohen and Roujinsky (Final Act. 33--41 ).
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cohen, Roujinsky, and Schmid (Final Act. 41--42).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
1 Claim 12 is objected to due to informalities. This issue is not before us.
3
Appeal2015-002267
Application 13/344,919
ISSUES
Double Patenting Rejection: Claim 19
Appellants present no arguments pertaining to the Examiner's
limitations of the claimed subject matter rejection of claim 19 (App. Br. 1-
17; Reply Br. 1-5). Accordingly, we summarily sustain these rejections.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02, 8th ed., Rev.
9 (August 2012) ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not
addressed in the [A ]ppellants['] brief, appellant has waived any challenge to
that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it").
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 4, and 7-11
Appellants assert their invention as recited in claims 1, 4, and 7-11 is
not obvious over the combination of Cohen and Schmid (App. Br. 8-14).
The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Cohen
and Schmid teaches or suggests "notifying, by the status agent, different
ones of said messaging applications of delivery of a corresponding one of
the messages as indicated by a status update message for the corresponding
one of the messages," as recited in independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend neither Cohen nor Schmid teaches or suggests
"notifying, by the status agent, different ones of said messaging applications
of delivery of a corresponding one of the messages as indicated by a status
update message for the corresponding one of the messages" (App. Br. 9).
Specifically, Appellants argue the relied upon Cohen does not disclose "the
4
Appeal2015-002267
Application 13/344,919
notification of one or more messaging applications" (id.). Appellants
further contend the Examiner's interpretation of Cohen is misplaced (Reply
Br. 3). Appellants concede Cohen discloses "messages of different message
types and inherently different message applications" (App. Br. 12) and
"sending, receiving and tracking messages" (id. at 11 ); however, Appellants
argue Cohen does not disclose "notifying, by the status agent, different ones
of the messaging applications of delivery of a corresponding one of the
messages as indicated by a status update message for the corresponding one
of the messages" (id. at 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
Examiner's findings that Cohen discloses notifying messaging applications
by the "receipt notifications regarding sent messages are reported to sending
user via sending user input/output" (Ans. 35). We further agree Cohen's
"messaging applications include a user input/output module ... to display a
receipt notification" (id.). Thus, we agree with the Examiner's findings and
conclusion that Cohen's receipt notification teaches the claimed notifying
step (id.). Moreover, the claim merely requires the ability to transmit
different messages by different applications and the ability to notify the
applications of delivery of the messages sent; the claim does not require
simultaneous delivery of notifications for a plurality of messages (Cl. 1 ).
Indeed, the claim recites notifying different ones of the messaging
applications of a delivery of a corresponding one of the messages. Given
that "different ones of the messaging applications" is not defined explicitly
in Appellants' Specification, and may be interpreted in several ways in the
context of the claim, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner fails to show Cohen teaches the disputed limitation. It follows, we
5
Appeal2015-002267
Application 13/344,919
determine Cohen's receipt notification of the tracking system, discloses the
claimed notifying step.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Cohen and Schmid teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in independent claim 1 and in claims 4 and 7-11, not separately
argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 7-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Cohen and Schmid.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 2, 3, 6, and 12-18
Appellants argue independent claim 12 based on the same arguments
as set forth with respect to independent claim 1 (App. Br. 14). Appellants do
not present any arguments that dependent claims claims 2, 3, 6, and 13-18
are patentable over Cohen, Schmid, and Daigle. As set forth above, we
determine the Examiner has shown the combination of Cohen and Schmid
discloses the invention as claimed in independent claim 1. Thus, for the
reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Cohen, Schmid, and Daigle teaches the invention as
recited in independent claim 12. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, and 13-18 fall
with their respective independent claim.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 5
Appellants argue their invention as recited in claim 5, is not
unpatentable over Cohen, Schmid, and Hutchinson due to its dependence on
claim 1 (App. Br. 6-17). As set forth above, we determine the Examiner has
shown the combination of Cohen and Schmid discloses the invention as
claimed in independent claim 1. Appellants do not proffer sufficient
6
Appeal2015-002267
Application 13/344,919
evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, claim 5 falls with its respective
independent claim.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 19-21
Appellants assert their invention as recited in claims 19-21, is not
obvious over Cohen and Roujinsky (App. Br. 14--17). The issue presented
by the arguments is:
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Cohen and Roujinsky teaches or suggests "the one or more processors being
configured to: ... reconcile each delivery status update message and each
read status update message with one of said outbound message notifications
to determine a corresponding one of the sending communication devices," as
recited in independent claim 19?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Cohen and Roujinsky does not disclose "the one or
more processors being configured to: ... reconcile each delivery status
update message and each read status update message with one of said
outbound message notifications to determine a corresponding one of the
sending communication devices" (App. Br. 14--15). Specifically, Appellants
argue Cohen does not disclose the claimed reconciliation; and "nothing in
any portion of Cohen relates to the specifically claimed teaching of
reconciling a status update with a corresponding sending communications
device" (id. at 15-17).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. First, we note, as a
matter of claim construction, that neither the claim nor Appellants'
7
Appeal2015-002267
Application 13/344,919
Specification defines reconciliation (Cl. 19; see also Spec. iii! 42, 44, 46, 73,
81, 90). The Examiner finds Cohen discloses the recited reconciliation by
"identifying [a] message associated with received receipt notification" (Ans.
38). The Examiner further finds Roujinsky discloses reconciliation of
different status update messages by "analyzing read acknowledgements
received from recipient devices" (id.). We agree with the Examiner's
findings that the combination of Cohen and Roujinsky discloses the recited
reconciliation (id. at 38-39); one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Appellants argue the
teachings of Cohen alone while the Examiner relies on the combination of
the teachings and suggestions of Cohen and Roujinsky. As such, Appellants
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Cohen and Roujinsky teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in independent claim 19 and in claims 20 and 21, not separately
argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 19-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Cohen and Roujinsky.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 22
Appellants argue their invention as recited in claim 22, is not
unpatentable over Cohen, Roujinsky, and Schmid due to its dependence on
claim 19 (App. Br. 6-17). As set forth above, we determine the Examiner
has shown the combination of Cohen and Roujinsky discloses the invention
as claimed in independent claim 19. However, Appellants do not proffer
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's
8
Appeal2015-002267
Application 13/344,919
findings. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, claim 22 falls with its
respective independent claim.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 12 under non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being obvious over conflicting co--
pending US Application 13/344,359, now US Patent 8,761,737, is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cohen and Schmid is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cohen, Schmid, and Daigle is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cohen, Schmid, and Hutchinson is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cohen and Roujinsky is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cohen, Roujinsky, and Schmid 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9