Ex Parte Itani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2017

13714364 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017)

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.
13/714,364 12/13/2012 Majed Itani 1301-018CIP 2319
7590 09/19/201729973
CRGO LAW
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, JOHNESE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2017 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@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUGARCRM INC.1
Appeal 2016-006403
Application 13/714,364
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
This is a decision on Appellant’s Request for Rehearing (“Req.
Reh’g”). Appellant’s Request for Rehearing is filed under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(1) requesting that we reconsider our Decision of June 13, 2017
(“Dec.”), wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—
21. We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellant’s contentions
in the Request for Rehearing, and have found no substantive errors.
Therefore, we decline to change the Decision. Appellant’s request is
DENIED.
1 Majed Itani, Rob Aagaard, Lila Tretikov, and Clint Oram are the inventors.
Appeal 2016-006403
Application 13/714,364
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the Board erred in affirming the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 because “the automatic detection of an identity using
cookie files placed within Web-browsers as taught at paragraph [0842] of
Perkowski and admitted by Examiner at page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer
clearly did not provide for a 1:1 correspondence of’ the claimed “detection
of an event for a customer registered in a social networking system.” Req.
Reh’g 5.
In particular, Appellant argues “paragraph [0882] of Perkowski in fact
does not teach any logging in by any individual.” Id. at 6. However, the
Examiner relied on Perkowski’s disclosures in paragraph 842, not paragraph
882, to show that Perkowski disclosed detecting an event for a customer.
Dec. 3 (citing Non-Final Act. 3). Furthermore, the Examiner relied on
Perkowski’s disclosures in paragraph 882, not paragraph 842, to show that
Perkowski disclosed a “detected login representing] an event for a customer
in a social networking system.” Dec. 4 (citing Ans. 3).
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and in the Reply Brief did
not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on paragraphs 842 and 882 of
Perkowski for these disclosures. Nor did Appellant’s show that these two
paragraphs were directed to distinct embodiments that the Examiner
improperly combined.
Appellant also argues the Board overlooked the argument that
Perkowski’s paragraph 842 updating of the [Brand Information Network] or
[Multi-Mode Virtual Kiosk] “does not occur in response to the logging in by
any consumer to a social media Web site.” Req. Reh’g 8. Appellant argues
that “the [customer relationship management] databases are used to
2
Appeal 2016-006403
Application 13/714,364
configure the ‘ [Multi-Mode Virtual Kiosk] ’ . . . only in response to the
detection of a particular customer—not in connection with any login event
by the customer.” Id. at 9. Appellant contends “the term ‘login’ or any
analogous term cannot be found in paragraph [0842] of Perkowski.” Id.
Appellant’s does not show where in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief
Appellant persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s finding that Perkowski’s
detection of a particular consumer’s identity includes detection of a “login”
(i.e., how the particular customer, in some manner, became identifiable).
See Ans. 3^4. As we correctly found, Appellant’s arguments
“unpersuasively fail[ed] to distinguish the claimed detection of an event
from Perkowski’s identification of a customer who has logged in (where the
login represents an event).” Dec. 3 (citing Ans. 3). Appellant’s argument
that the term “login” (or a like term) is not explicitly included in
Perkowski’s paragraph 842 unpersuasively fails to address the Examiner’s
reliance on the identity of the customer being identifiable as disclosing that
the customer had, in some manner, logged in. See Ans. 3 (“[t]he identity of
the consumer or ‘customer’ is detected via a login event”).
For these reasons, Appellant does not show that we erred in agreeing
with the Examiner that Perkowski discloses “detecting an event for one of
the registered different customers in a social networking system,” as recited
in claim 1. See Dec. 4.
Appellant argues the Board erred because in Perkowski’s only
updating “occurs with respect to content outside of the [customer
relationship management] system in the” Brand Information Network and
Multi-Mode Virtual Kiosk. Req. Reh’g 8. Appellant contends the invention
as claimed “requires the opposite—the posting of an action in the [customer
3
Appeal 2016-006403
Application 13/714,364
relationship management! application for the one of the registered different
customers,” but that Perkowski’s paragraph 842 makes “clear that no
updating or posting of any action occurs in the [customer relationship
management] system—but outside of the [customer relationship
management] system.” Id.', see also id. at 9 (“no action is taken in the
[customer relationship management] databases—but the [customer
relationship management] databases are used to configure the” Multi-Mode
Virtual Kiosk).
Appellant does not show where in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief
Appellant raised this purported point of distinction between the claimed
invention and Perkowski. Rather, Appellant had merely argued that “the
[customer relationship management] databases coupled to the [Brand
Information Networks] are NOT updated with any action for the identified
customer based upon the identification of the customer” (App. Br. 8), that in
Perkowski’s paragraph 842 “the customer using a Web browser is merely
identified” (id. ), and that “the response to an event by posting an action in
the [customer relationship management] application for a customer .... is
much more than the automatic updating of’ Brand Information Networks
and Multi-Mode Virtual Kiosk “configurations for particular customers in
the [customer relationship management] database in so far as the ‘automatic
updating’ [of Perkowski’s paragraph 842] is not an automatic updating for a
customer for whom the event has been detected” (Reply Br. 5).
Appellant’s arguments did not persuasively distinguish the claimed
posting an action in the customer relationship management application from
Perkowski disclosure of “updates (i.e., content programming) [that] use the
detected customer identity such that the updates reflect the customer’s
4
Appeal 2016-006403
Application 13/714,364
desires, tastes, and preferences.” Dec. 4 (citing Ans. 3—\\ Perkowski | 842).
Appellant’s newly posited argument that the updates that take place in
Perkowski are outside the customer relationship management application is
untimely and therefore does not show that we erred in agreeing with the
Examiner that Perkowski discloses “responding to the event by posting an
action in the [customer relationship management] application for the one of
the registered different customers,” as recited in claim 1. Dec. 4.
DECISION
Based on the record before us now and in the original appeal, we grant
Appellant’s request to the extent we reconsidered our decision, but we
DENY Appellant’s request with respect to making any change thereto.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED
5