Ex Parte KOUL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2016

12607031 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/607,031 10/27/2009
58019 7590 03/15/2016
MARGER JOHNSON - Oracle
(ORACLE)
888 SW 5th A venue, Suite 1050
PORTLAND, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ROHITKOUL
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.
3222-0035 3871
EXAMINER
BELANI, KISHIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2016 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@techlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROHIT KOUL and GURUDUTTA RAMANATHAIAH
Appeal2014-006636
Application 12/607 ,031 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-18, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
The claims are directed to monitoring electronic messages transmitted
across a network, determining if any of the electronic messages include any
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Oracle International
Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006636
Application 12/607,031
keywords, sending any electronic messages that include at least one keyword
to a formatting module, extracting data relating to the keyword from the
electronic message, and collating the data into a second electronic message
and transmitting the second message. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A computer-controlled method, comprising:
receiving, at a server, at least one trigger condition, the trigger
condition defining when and how often a monitoring module on the server
becomes active;
monitoring, at the monitoring module at the server, electronic
messages transmitted across a network from any one of a group of
participating users;
determining if any of the electronic messages include any of a stored
set of keywords;
sending any of the electronic messages that include at least one
keyword to a formatting module;
extracting, at the formatting module, data relating to the keyword
from the electronic message according to a previously-established rule
stored in the network; and
collating, at the formatting module, the data relating to the keyword
from multiple ones of the electronic messages into one, collated, second
electronic message and transmitting the collated second electronic message
to a supervising user.
Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Reed et al. (US 7,496,500 B2, issued Feb. 24,
2
Appeal2014-006636
Application 12/607,031
2009), Faist et al. (US 2006/0240395 Al, published Oct. 26, 2006), and
Mohan et al. (US 7,536,413 Bl, issued May 19, 2009).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reed, Faist, Mohan, and Curry et al. (US 2005/0027781
Al, published Feb 3, 2005).
Claims 10, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Reed, Faist, Mohan, and Pascal et al. (US
2010/0159883 Al, published June 24, 2010).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reed, Faist, Mohan, and John et al. (US2006/00854 l 7 Al,
published Apr. 20, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 1 and 13
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1 and 13 because Reed does not "teach the use of electronic messages as the
output of the gathered data, much less the collation into one electronic
message." App. Br. 10. Appellants also argue Reed "does not perform
3
Appeal2014-006636
Application 12/607,031
collating data from multiple messages into (one) electronic message." Id.
We disagree.
Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Reed in Fig. 10 shows
a second email message in the user's In box, that lists a plurality
( 6 shown in Fig. 10) of received email messages being identified
at 1010 for analysis and highlighting [shown at 1020] for one of
the identified email message, and a reformulated extract from the
identified messages being shown at 1030; column 10, lines 22-
25 and column 12, lines 35-50 describe these details, thereby
disclosing analyzing a plurality of incoming email messages,
then collating the data related to the keyword task list, and
sending a single collated electronic message to a user).
Final Act. 5.
Implicit in the Examiner's findings is the observation that Reed's task
list showing reformulated tasks (see Figs. 10 (item 1030), 12 (item 1270))
may include a message delivered electronically to the user. As Reed
explains, and the Examiner points out, "[I]f the item corresponds to a task,
further reformulation can be performed to determine, infer and/ or predict the
task to be performed as well as the necessary action to be taken (e.g.,
calendar a meeting, send an email, notifY someone, send a document, cancel
a meeting . .. ). Reed, 9:64--10:3. The Examiner, in the Answer, further
describes in detail how Reed in Figs. 9-12 teaches the disputed limitation.
See Ans. 21, 22. In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Reed
"shows identifying and processing a "plurality" of emails to produce a
"single collated" task list shown in Fig. 11, that may be emailed to a user."
Ans. 22 (citing Reed, Fig. 12 (item 1270); 9:64--10:3).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the Appellants' arguments that
the Examiner erred in finding Reed teaches the disputed limitation of
"collating, at the formatting module, the data relating to the keyword from
4
Appeal2014-006636
Application 12/607,031
multiple ones of the electronic messages into one, collated, second
electronic message and transmitting the collated second electronic
message, " as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly in independent
claim 13.
Remaining Claims
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive arguments with
respect to remaining claims 2-12, and 14--18. See App. Br. 10, 11; Reply
Br. 1-3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18.
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