Ex Parte Vellanki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2013

10818227 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/818,227 04/05/2004 Vivekanand Vellanki RSW920030301US1 (149) 3489
46320 7590 06/19/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, DUSTIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte VIVEKANAND VELLANKI and DURGA D. MANNARU
_____________

Appeal 2013-001315
Application 10/818,227
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2013-001315
Application 10/818,227
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4 through 12, and 14 through 19.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system for verifying the receipt and
review of real time messages. See page 4 of Appellants’ Specification.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for tagging a seen/not-seen status of a real time
message, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a real time message;
presenting said real time message through a real time
communications client disposed in memory of a host client
computing device;
inspecting an operating mode of said host client
computing device to determine whether said real time message
has not been reviewed; and,
upon determining that said real time message has not been
reviewed based upon said inspected operating mode, tagging
said real time message as not seen.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 through 12, 14, 15, 18
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Okuyama (U.S.
2001/005859 A1). Answer 5-71.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Okuyama and Taori (U.S. 2007/0165790 A1). Answer
7-8.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
September 26, 2012.
Appeal 2013-001315
Application 10/818,227
3

The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Okuyama and Fujii (U.S. 6,883,016 B1). Answer 8-9.

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 5 through 10 of the Appeal Brief and pages
2 through 7 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are in error for the same reasons.2 These
arguments present us with the issue:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding that Okuyama teaches inspecting
an operating mode of a client computing device to determine
whether a real time message has been reviewed as recited in
representative claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that Okuyama
teaches inspecting an operating mode of a client computing device to
determine whether a real time message has been reviewed. Brief 6.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has established that Okuyama teaches
inspecting an operating mode of a client host but not the use of the

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on July
10, 2012 and Reply Brief filed October 29, 2012.
Appeal 2013-001315
Application 10/818,227
4

inspection to determine whether or not a real time message has been
reviewed. Brief 9.3
The Examiner finds that Okuyama teaches notifying a sender if a text
message has not been reviewed in a prescribed time and that one method of
determining if a message has been reviewed involves monitoring the user
interaction with a receive window for the text messages. Answer 9-10. The
Examiner considers these teachings to anticipate the claimed inspecting an
operating mode of a client computing device to determine whether a real
time message has been reviewed.
We concur with the Examiner’s findings, Okuyama in paragraph 132
discusses determining whether the user has reviewed a message based upon
whether the user has selected one of several buttons associated with the text
message viewer. Implicit in this teaching is that there are at least two
modes, one where the user has not interacted (by pushing a button) with the
text message viewer and others where the user has interacted with the text
message viewer (e.g. one mode where text message viewer window is open
and the other where it has been closed). Neither the Specification (which
merely provides examples of modes, see Para. 0021) nor Appellants’
arguments provide a definition of the term “operating mode” which define
over this teaching of Okuyama.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 1. As

3 We note that Appellants’ arguments, on page 9 of the Brief, which states
“Okuyama does not teach the use of ‘operational status’ information of a PC
client for determining whether or not a real time message has been
reviewed” is not commensurate with the claim which recites “operating
mode” not “operating status.”
Appeal 2013-001315
Application 10/818,227
5

Appellants have not presented separate arguments for the other claims
similarly rejected as anticipated by or obvious over Okuyama, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 12, and 14 through
19 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj