Ex Parte Leeder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

13204078 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/204,078 08/05/2011
105956 7590 08/29/2016
Fogarty, LLC
P.O. Box 703695
Dallas, TX 75370-3695
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Leeder
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.
GEN-182 9041
EXAMINER
DAILEY, THOMAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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):
docket@fogartyip.com
jody.bishop@genband.com
uspto@fogartyip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL LEEDER, CARROLL LOUISE
GRAY-PRESTON, JAMES ANGUS MCEACHERN,
andRICHARDC. TAYLOR
Appeal2015-001904
Application 13/204,078
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1-22, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-001904
Application 13/204,078
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "methods, systems, and computer
readable media for managing social interaction histories." Specification
1:7-8. Claims 1, 12, and 22 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
for reference:
1. A method for managing social interaction history
information, the method comprising:
receiving first social interaction history information
associated with a user of a first over the top (OTT) service
platform;
receiving second social interaction history information
associated with the user, the second social interaction history
information from a communications service platform distinct
from the first OTT service platform;
generating, using the first social interaction history
information and the second social interaction history
information, a consolidated social interaction history; and
providing the consolidated social interaction history to the
user.
References and Rejections
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Frank (US 2005/0125541 Al; June 9, 2005). Final Action 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final
Action 2-7; Answer 2-12) as our own, and we add the following primarily
for emphasis.
2
Appeal2015-001904
Application 13/204,078
A. Independent Claims
Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because "Frank fails to disclose
every element of claim 1, and hence independent claims 1, 12 and 22 are
patentable over the anticipation rejection of record." Appeal Brief 11; see
also Appeal Brief 6-10. For example, Appellants contend the cited
reference does not anticipate the claimed method of managing social
interaction history information because "Frank does not appear to be related
to social interaction information in any way. In fact, Appellant respectfully
points out that Frank in its entirety, is silent with respect to 'social
interaction (history) information,' or the like." Appeal Brief 6. Appellants
further argue: "Frank does not disclose OTT service platforms" (id. at 8);
"Frank cannot teach (or suggest) 'a communications service platform
distinct from the first OTT service platform,' as also claimed" (id. at 9); and
"Frank fails to even disclose a 'consolidated history' ... [or] a history of
such interactions, much less a history of social interactions" (id. at 10).
We find Appellants' arguments are based on an expectation that the
exact claim language is to be found in the applied reference. In a finding of
anticipation, however, "the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
test[.]" In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Here, the Examiner has
identified the relevant portions of Frank and has properly mapped the
claimed method steps to the communication mode integration operations of
Frank. See Final Action 3--4; Answer 2-8; see also Frank Figure 2, i-fi-138-
42. We agree with the Examiner, and we find that Frank-although not
using identical terminology---discloses the elements recited in independent
claim 1. Id.
3
Appeal2015-001904
Application 13/204,078
That is, Frank discloses first and second social interaction history
information, as claimed, because Frank describes "accessing various types of
messages including e-mail, voice mail, conversation requests, and messages
generally" (Answer 3), and these messages "are stored and later accessed in
Frank" (Answer 4 ). See Frank i-fi-1 3 8--41; see also Specification 10 ("social
interactions ... (e.g., phone calls, text messages, tweets, wall posts, friend
requests, etc.)"). Frank consolidates these histories, as Frank discloses
"storing the different interaction in the same database and all associated with
the same user (i.e. it consolidates them)." Answer 8 (citing Frank i-fi-139, 42).
We also agree with the Examiner that Frank discloses the distinct service
platforms, as claimed, because Frank is directed to "services that run on
networks including IM, email, voice mail, etc." (Answer 4), and a user can
access these different network service platforms from various devices (see
Answer 7). Additionally, Frank discloses examples of such service
platforms include "the AOL® IM service." See Frank i153; compare
Specification 9 ("[ e ]xemplary OTT service platforms may include ... an
instant messaging service (e.g., America online instant messenger)").
Based on the Examiner's reasonable findings, we are satisfied that
Frank discloses the method for managing social interaction history
information of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, and independent claims 12 and 22, which are not
argued separately. See Appeal Brief 11.
B. Dependent Claims
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 2,
because "Frank merely states that a user is logged onto his own computer
4
Appeal2015-001904
Application 13/204,078
('user 12 is logged in on computer 14'), not logging into an OTT service
platform, or the like," as required by the claim. Appeal Brief 12; see also
Reply Brief 9. We agree with the Examiner, however, that because "Frank
discloses IM services such as AOL IM® see [0053], it is inherent and
known that one must be logged into those systems to receive user specific
information from them (e.g. messages or conversations requests directed at
the user)." Answer 8-9; see also Frank i-fi-153, 39 ("User 12 may also log
into computer 30 and have access to the same information on computer 30
from database 20 as by logging into computer 14"). Thus, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Frank discloses the limitations of
dependent claim 2.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 3
and 4, because Frank "fails to teach (or suggest) 'monitoring
communications between the user and the first OTT service platform,' but
rather merely teaches saving communication-related information, such as is
available to user 12's computer 14." Appeal Brief 13. We are not
persuaded the Examiner erred, because Frank discloses integration software
that facilitates and saves communications using the service platforms. See
Answer 9 (citing Frank i-f 38); see also Specification 10 ("[m]onitoring
module 202 may log, store, and/or provide sufficient information to recreate
a user's communication history").
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 6,
because Frank "fails to teach (or suggest) associations between related
social interactions, as claimed, but rather teaches integration of multiple
modes of personal communication provided in an interface to a user using a
single GUI, as explained in cited paragraph [0038] of Frank." Appeal Brief
5
Appeal2015-001904
Application 13/204,078
16; see also Reply Brief 12. We do not find the Examiner erred, however, in
determining "Frank inherently discloses a data structure, but also since
Frank stores everything in relation to the same user there are 'associations
between related interactions occurring via the first OTT service platform and
the communications service."' Answer 11 (citing Frank Figs. 3, 3A); see
also Specification 12, 20 (describing associations based on user profiles).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 5, 1
7-10, 15, and 17-20. See Appeal Brief 14, 15, 17-21. We are not
persuaded the Examiner erred, however, because Appellants' arguments
consist of referring to or reiterating the arguments presented for independent
claim 1, repeating the dependent claim limitations, and quoting the cited
portions of Frank. See id. Such a response to the Examiner's findings is
insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error, as conclusory statements that
are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."); cf In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art."). Thus,
1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether claims 5 and 15 fail to further limit their corresponding independent
claims, pursuant to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.
6
Appeal2015-001904
Application 13/204,078
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Frank discloses the
limitations of dependent claims 5, 7-10, 15, and 17-20.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10, 12, 15, 17-20,
and 22. Appellants advance no further argument on dependent claims 11,
13, 14, 16,2 and 21. See Appeal Brief 11-12. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 We note claim 16 is not discussed in the Appeal Brief.
7