11219844 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

Ex Parte Dodrill et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

11219844 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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. 11/219,844 09/07/2005 Lewis Dean Dodrill 10-052 3055 23164 7590 10/31/2012 Cisco c/o Leon R Turkevich 2000 M STREET NW SUITE 700 WASHINGTON, DC 20036-3307 EXAMINER RASHID, HARUNUR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2493 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte LEWIS DEAN DODRILL, GEETHA RAVISHANKAR, SATISH JOSHI, RYAN ALAN DANNER, SUSAN HARROW BARBAN, STEVEN J. MARTIN, and SWAMINATHAN RAVISHANKAR ____________________ Appeal 2010-003820 Application 11/219,844 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003820 Application 11/219,844 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-14, 16, 18, 20-28, 30-37, 39-45, 47, 49, 51-58, and 60-67. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 7, 17, 19, 29, 38, 48, 50, and 59 are canceled.1 We REVERSE. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and method for generating and executing voice enabled web applications within a hypertext markup language (HTML) and hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) framework. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A method in an application server for executing a voice messaging application, the method comprising: 1 The Examiner has taken inconsistent positions with regard to claims 15, 18, 46, and 49. The Advisory Action of June 2, 2009 indicates “Applicant’s reply has overcome the following rejection(s): 102 rejection on claims 15, 18, 46 and 49” on the first page. The Continuation Sheet, however, only indicates “[c]laims 15, [sic] and 46, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.” The Examiner’s Answer indicates all of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 and Appellants do not correct that statement in the Reply Brief. Thus, it is not clear from the record whether claims 15 and 46 have been rejected. Accordingly, we address all the claims as still being rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102. Appeal 2010-003820 Application 11/219,844 3 receiving a first HTTP request for execution of a prescribed voice messaging application operation for a subscriber; accessing attribute information for the subscriber from an Internet Protocol (IP) based database server configured for storing subscriber attributes; accessing an IP-based messaging server for subscriber messaging information based on the accessed attribute information, each stored message on the IP-based messaging server being stored within a corresponding e-mail message as a URL encoded string with the corresponding header information so that each stored message is encoded in the URL encoded string; and generating an HTML page, for execution of the prescribed voice messaging application operation and having media content and control tags, based on the first HTTP request and the subscriber messaging information. References Gifford US 2002/0131561 Sep. 19, 2002 Moshfeghi US 6,476,833 B1 Nov. 5, 2002 Rejections (1) Claims 1-6, 9-16, 18, 20-23, 25-28, 30-37, 40-47, 49, 51-54, 56-58, and 60-67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Gifford. (2) Claims 8, 24, 39, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gifford and Moshfeghi. Appeal 2010-003820 Application 11/219,844 4 ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 102(e): claims 1-6, 9-16, 18, 20-23, 25-28, 30-37, 40-47, 49, 51-54, 56-58, and 60-67 Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Gifford (App. Br. 14-16). Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner is not giving the claimed URL (Universal Resource Link) string the broadest reasonable interpretation since the claimed URL string is distinct from an MIME encoded attachment (App. Br. 14). According to Appellants, Gifford does not disclose an IP-based messaging server where each message is stored in the form of a URL encoded string (App. Br. 15). Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Gifford discloses “each stored message on the IP-based messaging server being stored within a corresponding e-mail message as a URL encoded string with the corresponding header information so that each stored message is encoded in the URL encoded string” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We agree with Appellants. The Examiner has not shown Gifford discloses each stored message being stored within a corresponding e-mail message as a URL encoded string with the corresponding header information so that each stored message is encoded in the URL encoded string. Instead, the Examiner finds Gifford describes URLs with “message retrieval” (Ans. 23). Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. Appeal 2010-003820 Application 11/219,844 5 Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding Gifford discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1, commensurately recited independent claims 22, 32, 53, and 65, and dependent claims 2-6, 9-16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25-28, 30, 31, 33-37, 40-47, 49, 51, 52, 54, 56-58, 60-64, 66, and 67. Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 9-16, 18, 20-23, 25-28, 30-37, 40-47, 49, 51-54, 56-58, and 60-67 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Gifford. ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 8, 24, 39, and 55 The Examiner has not shown Moshfeghi cures the deficiencies of Gifford. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, dependent claims 8, 24, 39, and 55 stand with their respective independent claims. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Gifford and Moshfeghi teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 8, 24, 39, and 55. Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 24, 39, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Gifford and Moshfeghi. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 9-16, 18, 20-23, 25-28, 30-37, 40-47, 49, 51-54, 56-58, and 60-67 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Gifford is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 24, 39, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gifford and Moshfeghi is reversed. Appeal 2010-003820 Application 11/219,844 6 REVERSED tj