Ex Parte Vengroff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

13363239 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/363,239 0113112012
826 7590 08/24/2016
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Darren E. Vengroff
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.
058407/426581 4858
EXAMINER
GESESSE, TILAHUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARREN E. VENGROFF and JEFFREY A. HOLDEN
Appeal2015-004946
Application 13/363,239 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 49-52, 54, and 67-109. App. Br. 6. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Groupon,
Incorporated. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2015-004946
Application 13/363,239
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 49-52, 54, and 67-109 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Shamp et al. (US 7,239,871 B2, published
July 3, 2007).
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
According to the application, the present invention relates "generally
to techniques for facilitating user interactions based on proximity," and more
particularly "to provide functionality to location-based virtual groups of
users." Spec. i-f 2. Independent claim 49 is directed to a non-transitory
computer-readable medium; independent claims 76 and 96 are directed to
computer-implemented methods; and independent claim 88 is directed to a
configured computing system. App. Br. 16, 19, 22, 24.
Claim 49 recites:
49. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored
contents that configure a computing device to perform a method,
the method comprising:
receiving, by the configured computing device, one or more
first instructions from a first user who is a member of a virtual
group to establish a uni-directional relationship from the first user
to each of one or more other indicated users;
initiating, by the configured computing device, establishing
of the uni-directional relationship from the first user to each of the
one or more other indicated users in response to the one or more
first instructions; and
in response to one or more second instructions from the first
user that identify the one or more other indicated users as intended
recipients of one or more communications from the first user,
initiating, by the configured computing device, forwarding of the
2
Appeal2015-004946
Application 13/363,239
one or more communications to the one or more other indicated
users.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejections in the Final Office Action, and the Examiner's
response to Appellants' arguments in the Examiner's Answer. On the record
before us, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred in finding Shamp
describes:
initiating, by the configured computing device,
establishing of the uni-directional relationship from the first user
to each of the one or more other indicated users in response to
the one or more first instructions; and
in response to one or more second instructions from the
first user that identify the one or more other indicated users as
intended recipients of one or more communications from the first
user, initiating, by the configured computing device, forwarding
of the one or more communications to the one or more other
indicated users,
as recited in claim 49. See App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that Shamp describes second instructions from
the first user identifying the other indicated users as intended recipients of
communications, and forwarding those communications to the other
indicated users upon successful log on and text message initiation from the
first user. Ans. 19; see also Ans. 2--4, 16-18. The Examiner's findings in
Shamp and its applicability to the claimed limitation draws upon Shamp' s
Step 604, where a user provides access rights to profile information, as
second instructions, and Shamp' s logging on or text message initiation from
a first user as the initiator for forwarding communications. See Shamp col.
17, 11. 16-20; see also Shamp Fig. 6; see also Shamp col. 7, 11. 41---68, col. 8,
11. 31--46.
3
Appeal2015-004946
Application 13/363,239
However, claim 49 is directed towards
establishing of the uni-directional relationship from the first user
to each of the one or more other indicated users in response to
the one or more first instructions; and
in response to one or more second instructions from the
first user that identifj; the one or more other indicated users as
intended recipients of one or more communications from the first
user ... forwarding of the one or more communications to the
one or more other indicated users.
Emphasis added. In other words, claim 49 is directed towards first
instructions to establish the relationship between the first user and other
users, and second instructions to initiate forwarding a communication from
the first user to the other users.
Contrary to the claimed first and second instructions, the Examiner's
findings in Shamp correspond to multiple second instructions, or to
forwarding communications from the first user to other indicated users in
response to the first instructions and not the claimed second instructions. As
cited and interpreted by the Examiner, Shamp's successful log on and
initiated text message from a first user does not describe:
in response to one or more second instructions from the
first user that identifj; the one or more other indicated users as
intended recipients of one or more communications from the first
user, initiating, by the configured computing device, forwarding
of the one or more communications to the one or more other
indicated users,
as recited in claim 49 (emphasis added). Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 49.
Independent claims 76, 88, and 96 are commensurate in scope with
independent claim 49, and claims 50-52, 54, 67-75, 77-87, 89-95, and 97-
109 are dependent on the independent claims. We do not sustain the
4
Appeal2015-004946
Application 13/363,239
rejection of these claims for the reasons stated above with regard to claim
49.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 49-52, 54, and 67-109 is reversed.
REVERSED
5