Ex Parte Salomaki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2014

10144260 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ARI SALOMAKI
____________________

Appeal 2012-005712
Application 10/144,2601
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 65–68, 70–72, 74–76, 78, and 79. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.2

1 The real party in interest, as identified by Appellant, is Nokia Corporation
(App. Br. 1).
2 Our Decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Oct.
25, 2011), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 22, 2011), and the
Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 22, 2012).
Appeal 2012-005712
Application 10/144,260

2

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to presence attributes in messaging and
presence service and more particularly, for creation of new presence
attributes besides predetermined presence attributes (Spec. 1:3–5, 2:4–5).
Claim 16 reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
16. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at
least one memory including computer program code for one or
more programs, the at least one memory and the computer
program code configured to, with the at least one processor,
cause the apparatus to perform at least the following,
determine to transmit presence information associated
with a device to a service, wherein the presence information
associated with the device comprises a plurality of presence
attributes identified by attribute name, and
generate a new presence attribute by adding a qualifier to
one of the presence attributes associated with the device, the
qualifier comprising one or more parameters specifying the use
of the one presence attribute, wherein the new presence
attribute is maintained separately from the one presence
attribute, and utilized to designate access to the presence
information by one or more members of the service.

THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 65–68, 70–72, 74–76, 78, and 79 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Godefroid
(US 6,697,840 B1, iss. Feb. 24, 2004).

Appeal 2012-005712
Application 10/144,260

3

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined the findings of fact in the Analysis section below
are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.3

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues independent claims 16, 65, 70, and 76 as a
group (App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 2). We select claim 16 as being
representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 16. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Godefroid fails to disclose the limitations
“generate a new presence attribute by adding a qualifier to one of the
presence attributes associated with the device” and “wherein the new
presence attribute is maintained separately from the one presence attribute
and utilized to designate access to the presence information by one or more
members of the service,” as recited in claim 16 (App. Br. 9–11, see also
Reply Br. 2–4).
The Examiner, however, maintains that the rejection of record is
proper (Ans. 6–7).
The prior art of record, Godefroid, is directed to a presence awareness
system that “gives a user the capability to express his willingness to engage
in casual interactions and to control which part of his private data can be
accessed by whom” (6:5–8). Godefroid discloses that predetermined
presence awareness settings (e.g., open door, closed door) may be modified

3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2012-005712
Application 10/144,260

4

by applying explicit rules (e.g., an exception rule) to create for example
modified open or closed door settings wherein “[t]he right of access can be
granted to individuals, set of designated users, [or] user groups” (6:8–32).
We are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument that modifying the
status by applying an exception rule in Godefroid cannot correspond to the
claimed qualifier because “the ‘exception rule’ simply defines when an
action is enabled based on a condition being satisfied” (App. Br. 9, Reply
Br. 3). Instead, we agree with, and adopt the Examiner’s findings on
pages 4–7 of the Answer as our own. Claim 16 recites that the qualifier
comprises “one or more parameters specifying the use of the one presence
attribute,” and Godefroid discloses that, for example, by applying (adding)
an exception rule (parameter) to the presence setting “door (open),” a
modified (new) presence setting or attribute “door (open)invite” is
set (generated) to explicitly exclude user j from communicating with user i
(6:33–44).
Appellant also argues that Godefroid cannot reasonably be considered
as disclosing “wherein the new presence attribute is maintained
separately from the one presence attribute, and utilized to designate
access to the presence information by one or more members of the
service” (Reply Br. 3, see also App. Br. 10). We disagree. Appellant
specifies that “[t]he qualifier may be used to add a new attribute (as an
attribute with a qualifier can be uniquely identified, i.e.[,] functionally
separated from an attribute with same attribute name but without qualifier)”
(Spec. 8:23–26). For instance, the modified presence setting provided above
with the exception rule is uniquely identifiable from the general “open door”
presence setting without the exception rule, and thus we agree with the
Appeal 2012-005712
Application 10/144,260

5

Examiner that Godefroid discloses this limitation, as called for in claim 16.
Also, by applying the exception rule, the modified presence setting is
utilized to designate access to the presence information by one or more
members of the service, because Godefroid discloses that “[t]he right of
access can be granted to individuals, set of designated users, user groups,
even sets of users dynamically decided by a predicate” (6:30–32), as
discussed above.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and thus sustain the rejection
of independent claims 65, 70, and 76, which fall with claim 16.
Insofar as Appellant has relied upon arguments presented above with
respect to dependent claims 19, 22, 25, 28, 66–68, 71, 72, 74–75, 78, and 79
(App. Br. 10–11), we sustain the rejection of those claims as well under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) for the reasons set forth above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 65–68, 70–72,
74–76, 78, and 79 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh