Ex Parte Davis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 23, 2010

10364561 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
10/364,561 02/10/2003 Joel A. Davis 02415; 190206-1690 6133
38823 7590 11/24/2010
AT&T Legal Department - TKHR
Attn: Patent Docketing
One AT&T Way
Room 2A-207
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
CHOU, ALAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2010 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 JOEL A. DAVIS, LARRY G. KENT, JR.,
W. TODD DANIELL, BRIAN K. DAIGLE, and
LEE G. FRIEDMAN
____________________

Appeal 2009-006193
Application 10/364,561
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006193
Application 10/364,561

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to client proxying for instant
messaging (Spec. 3:23-24).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for handling instant messages, comprising:
receiving an instant message at a primary IM processing device;
and
forwarding the instant message to an available secondary IM
processing device.

REFERENCE
Aravamudan US 6,301,609 B1 Oct. 9, 2001
The Examiner rejected claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Aravamudan.
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend Aravamudan does not
teach forwarding an instant message to an available secondary IM
processing device (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 3). In particular, Appellants assert
it would be counterintuitive to attempt to contact a user by an on-line
method in Aravamudan, because Aravamudan states: “‘If the user is off-line,
the CSP [(Communication Services Platform)] is provisioned to process
received data or communications via a second set of user defined rules,
which may include attempting to contact and notify the off-line user via CPE
2
Appeal 2009-006193
Application 10/364,561

[(client premises equipment)]” ((App. Br. 5 (quoting Aravamudan, col. 10,
ll. 44-48) (emphasis omitted)). Appellants argue because instant messages
are deliverable to on-line users, none of the CPE options in Aravamudan can
be considered an “available secondary IM processing device” since
Aravamudan discloses the user is off-line (Reply Br. 3).
We agree with the Examiner, however, and adopt the Examiner’s
findings (Ans. 6-7). We also find, in the same paragraph Appellants cite,
Aravamudan discloses:
The user may define varying rules for CSP treatment depending
on whether the user is online or off-line . . . . For example, if
online, the user may be supplied with an IM screen pop
informing him of a received communication . . . . The user is
offered various options, such as immediately forwarding the
communication, choosing the CPE device over which the
communication delivery is desired, and/or saving the
communication for later retrieval.
((Aravamudan, col. 10, ll. 34-44 (emphases added)). Thus, Aravamudan
meets the limitation of forwarding an instant message to an available
secondary IM processing device because the online user can chose to
forward a received communication to a CPE device.
Appellants’ arguments regarding independent claims 13 and 23 are
similar to the arguments addressed above with respect to claim 1. Thus, for
the above reasons, Aravamudan also anticipates claims 13 and 23. Claims
2-12, 14-22, and 24-27 depend from independent claims 1, 13, and 23, and
are not separately argued. Therefore, claims 2-12, 14-22, and 24-27 fall
with claims 1, 13, and 23.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27 is affirmed.
3
Appeal 2009-006193
Application 10/364,561

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)(v).

AFFIRMED

babc

AT&T Legal Department - TKHR
Attn: Patent Docketing
One AT&T Way
Room 2A-207
Bedminster, NJ 07921
4