Ex Parte Souza et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13252972 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
13/252,972 10/04/2011 Jeremy de Souza 333777-US-NP 4193
69316 7590 03/29/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
LE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEREMY DE SOUZA, MAYERBER CARVALHO NETO,
KOMAL KASHIRAMKA, and LADISLAU CONCEICAO
Appeal 2016-005991
Application 13/252,9721
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN A. EVANS, and NORMAN H. BEAMER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real party
in interest. (Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-005991
Application 13/252,972
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to conflict
resolution and de-duplication to effect contact unification. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method to be executed at least in part in a computing
device for collecting and storing contact unification metadata in
a centralized mailbox, the method comprising:
generating unified contact information for one or more
contacts retrieved from a plurality of sources by aggregating the
retrieved contact information at the mailbox, wherein logic
person objects are created for each distinct contact in the
mailbox;
collecting metadata associated with a contact information
unification process and one or more user actions associated
with the unified contact information, wherein the one or more
user actions are data-mined to one of un-link and link the one or
more contacts to infer a relationship value between the one or
more contacts;
collecting user feedback on a conflict resolution
associated with the contact information unification process by
enabling a user to vote on a reasonability of the conflict
resolution using a rating scale;
storing the metadata and the user feedback at the mailbox
such that the contact linking and the logic person objects are
preserved in a server-side mailbox for a user enabling efficient
roaming through applications across different form factors and
retrieval of the unified contact information; and
employing the metadata for subsequent contact
information unification processes.
2
Appeal 2016-005991
Application 13/252,972
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—3 and 5—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ring et al. (US 2010/0268742 Al, pub. Oct. 21,
2010) and Rotter et al. (US 2003/0046280 Al, pub. Mar. 6, 2003). (Final
Act. 2-16.)
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ring, Rotter, and Illowsky et al. (US 2005/0289265 Al,
pub. Dec. 29, 2005). (Final Act. 16—17.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief present the following issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ring and
Rotter teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations:
collecting metadata associated with a contact information
unification process and one or more user actions associated
with the unified contact information, wherein the one or more
user actions are data-mined to one of un-link and link the one or
more contacts to infer a relationship value between the one or
more contacts;
collecting user feedback on a conflict resolution
associated with the contact information unification process by
enabling a user to vote on a reasonability of the conflict
resolution using a rating scale. . . .
(Br. 4—6.) Appellants present similar issues for corresponding limitations of
independent claims 13 and 18. (Br. 6—9.)
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 14, 2015, amended Nov.
11, 2015); the Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 18, 2015); and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed Apr. 22, 2016) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-005991
Application 13/252,972
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—17)
and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—16).
We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner, and
emphasize the following.
In finding Ring and Rotter teach or suggest the limitations of the
independent claims at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Ring of
synchronizing folders using synchronization rules established through user
selection and stored within rules modules, and the ability of users to resolve
duplicate entries and conflicts via selecting best entries or values. (Final
Act. 3; Ring || 114—115, 155, 156.) The Examiner also relies on the
disclosure in Rotter of consolidating duplicate records using merge rules.
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 5, 10; Rotter || 13, 18—22.)
In regard to the requirement of “collecting user feedback on a conflict
resolution,” Appellants argue Ring enables user selection “prior to the
resolution of the conflict,” whereas the claims require “the user feedback is
collected after the conflict has already been resolved.'1'’ (Br. 4—5.) However,
we agree with the Examiner that there is no such requirement in the claims,
and a broad but reasonable interpretation of “collecting user feedback on a
conflict resolution” encompasses the user selections made in the process of
resolving conflicts, as disclosed in Ring. (Ans. 6—7.)
4
Appeal 2016-005991
Application 13/252,972
Appellants also argue Ring does not teach or suggest “enabling a user
to vote on a reasonability of the conflict resolution using a rating scale.”
(Br. 5.) However, we agree with the Examiner that, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation, the ability of the user to select the “best” value or
entry, as disclosed in Ring, teaches or suggest the “rating scale” aspect of the
limitation. (Ans. 7.)
Appellants further argue Ring fails to teach or suggest, “collecting . . .
user actions associated with the unified contact information.” (Br. 5—6.)
This argument is unpersuasive as conclusory, and failing to take into account
the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings of Ring and Rotter as to
this limitation. (Ans. 9—10.) Appellants also argue Ring fails to teach or
suggest “user actions are data-mined to one of un-link and link the one or
more contacts to infer a relationship value between the one or more
contacts.” (Br. 6.) Again, this argument fails to account for the Examiner’s
reliance on the combined teachings of Ring and Rotter. (Ans. 4—5.) In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test [for obviousness] is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary
skill in the art.”).
We note that Appellants do not provide any reply to any of the
rationale in support of the rejections set forth by the Examiner in the
Answer. In sum, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
1, 13, and 18.
5
Appeal 2016-005991
Application 13/252,972
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
independent claims 1,13, and 18 over Ring and Rotter. We also sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 5—12, 14—17, 19, and 20 over Ring and
Rotter, and of claim 4 over Ring, Rotter, and Illowsky, which rejections are
not argued separately with particularity. (Br. 9.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
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
6