Ex Parte Yoakum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2013

11269219 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2013)

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.
11/269,219 11/08/2005 John H. Yoakum 7000-477 6740
27820 7590 12/18/2013
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
100 REGENCY FOREST DRIVE
SUITE 160
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
UDDIN, MD I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2013 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 JOHN H. YOAKUM and ARIK ELBERSE
____________________

Appeal 2011-006227
Application 11/269,219
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006227
Application 11/269,219
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-14 and 16-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an interactive communication session
cookies. Spec. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus for using an interactive communication session
(ICS) cookie in conjunction with a first interactive real-time
communication session between first and second
communication clients comprising:
a communication interface; and
a control system associated with the communication
interface and adapted to:
receive the ICS cookie from or on behalf of the first
communication client, which received the ICS cookie in
association with the first interactive real-time communication
session with the second communication client; and
provide an operation in association with a second
interactive real-time communication session based on the ICS
cookie, wherein the ICS cookie provides persistent information
relating to the first interactive real-time communication session
and the ICS cookie is a cookie other than a web cookie.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Appeal 2011-006227
Application 11/269,219
3
Anglin US 2006/0282538 A1 Dec. 14, 2006
Greenspan US 7,188,140 B1 Mar. 6, 2007

REJECTIONS
1

The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-4, 18, and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1, 6, 8 and 5 of copending Application No. 11/268,845. Ans. 3-6.
Claims 1-14, 16, and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Greenspan. Ans. 6-11.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Greenspan and Anglin. Ans. 11-12.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. In connection with the rejection of claim 1, “Greenspan does not
disclose, or even suggest, providing an operation in association with a
second interactive real-time communication session based on an ICS
cookie, where the ICS cookie provides persistent information relating to
a first interactive real-time communication session.” App. Br. 9.
2. In connection with the rejections of claim 10, Greenspan does not
disclose:

1
In connection with the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Appellants
collectively argue the rejection of claims 1, 18, and 22. Appellants also
collectively argue the rejection of claims 10 and 20. Separate patentability is
not argued for claims 2-9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, and 21. Based on Appellants’
arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-19, 21 and 22
based on claim 1 alone and the appeal of claims 10 and 20 based on claim 10
alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-006227
Application 11/269,219
4
i. creating a second ICS cookie in association with a second interactive
real-time communication session (App. Br. 11); and
ii. sending a second ICS cookie to a first communication client or an
entity acting on behalf of the first communication client (App. Br. 12).

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8-13)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-5), the issue presented on appeal is whether
Greenspan discloses the disputed claim limitations.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Fin. Rej. 3-12)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 12-15) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.

Claim 1
Appellants contend Greenspan discloses continuing an existing
session, not creating a new session that continues a previous session. App.
Br. 10, Reply Br. 4. The Examiner finds a second session is started at step
530 of Greenspan if a first session previously had been established (i.e.,
exists.) Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner.
Appeal 2011-006227
Application 11/269,219
5
Greenspan describes verifying credentials of a user and determining if
a session already exists, i.e., a first interactive real-time communication
session. If this first session exists, the user is provided access to the
persistent communication session at step 550. Greenspan col 6, ll. 11-19. We
find this is tantamount to providing an operation in association with a second
interactive real-time communication session. In particular, Appellants
describe an interactive communication session (ICS) as “an active
communication session between two or more communication clients.” Spec.
5. This description is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of
a “session.”
2
While Appellants argue Greenspan is providing access to an
already existing session and does not disclose creating a new session (Reply
Br. 4), we disagree. Because Greenspan requires verification prior to
providing user access, prior to user verification the previous first session is
no longer active. Therefore, rejoining the previous communication session is
accomplished by, consistent with Appellants’ description, starting a new
session, i.e., establishing an active communication session. Therefore, giving
the phrase “interactive real-time communication session” its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we find
Greenspan discloses a user starting a second session which provides access
to a previous persistent communication session (i.e., the first interactive real-
time communication session). See Ans. 13.
We further agree with the Examiner that steps 530 and 550, which
provide access to the persistent communication session, disclose an

2
See, e.g., Microsoft Computer Dictionary. (2002). Redmond, Wash:
Microsoft Press.: session n. 2. In communications, the time during which
two computers maintain a connection.
Appeal 2011-006227
Application 11/269,219
6
“operation” which results in the continuation of a previous communication,
i.e., establishes a “second” session. Id. While Appellants argue “the
persistent communication session data [of Greenspan] is not used to provide
an operation for a second interactive real-time communication session”
(App. Br. 10), for the reasons supra, rejoining the first session results in (or
is at least tantamount to) starting a second interactive real-time
communication session. Because Greenspan describes checking if a session
already exists (step 530), the operation (i.e., rejoining the first session by
starting a second session) is based on persistence information (i.e., the ICS
cookie). Furthermore, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 13), Greenspan’s
notification of buddies and retrieval of earlier messages is still another
“operation” provided “in association with” the second interactive real-time
communication session based on the ICS cookie (i.e., persistent
communication session information). While Appellants argue “Greenspan
does not disclose that the Buddy URL is an ICS cookie, much less an ICS
cookie that provides persistent information relating to a first interactive real-
time communication session” (Reply Br. 3), we disagree. Because
Greenspan describes notifying buddies when a user logs into the persistent
communication server (Greenspan col. 6, ll. 20-27,) persistence information
(i.e., the ICS cookie) must include information to notify the buddies such as
the Buddy URL. See Greenspan col. 6, ll. 28-29: “the permanence of a
Buddy URL allows additional capabilities.”
Therefore, on the present record, we agree with the Examiner that
Greenspan discloses the disputed limitation of “provid[ing] an operation in
association with a second interactive real-time communication session based
on the ICS cookie, wherein the ICS cookie provides persistent information
Appeal 2011-006227
Application 11/269,219
7
relating to the first interactive real-time communication session.”
Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient evidence or argument to persuade
us of Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and,
for the same reasons, independent claims 18 and 22 together with the
rejections of dependent claims 2-9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, and 21 not separately
argued.
Claim 10
Appellants contend Greenspan fails to disclose creating a second ICS
cookie in association with a second interactive real-time communication
session. App. Br. 11. The Examiner responds that, upon start of a second
session, new content is added to the previous persistent communication
session information thereby creating a second ICS cookie. Ans. 14. Because
we agree with the Examiner that persistent communication session data
discloses an “ICS cookies as it can be stored and re-used” (Ans. 7), we agree
that updating or adding information to the persistent communication session
data during the second session creates new session data thereby disclosing
creation of a second ICS cookie. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient
rebuttal evidence or argument persuasive of Examiner error, we find
Greenspan discloses the disputed limitation of creating a second ICS cookie
in association with a second interactive real-time communication session.
Appellants further contend that, because “Greenspan mentions
nothing about a second ICS cookie,” it follows that “Greenspan cannot
disclose sending a second ICS cookie to a first communication client or an
entity acting on behalf of the first communication client.” App. Br. 12.
Because we find Greenspan does disclose a second ICS cookie for the
reasons supra, we disagree with Appellants’ premise and thereby find no
Appeal 2011-006227
Application 11/269,219
8
support for the corresponding conclusion. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that Greenspan discloses the disputed limitation. See Ans. 14.
Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient evidence or argument to persuade
us of Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of claim 10 and, for the same
reasons, the rejection of claim 20.

Claim 17
Appellants contend the combination of Greenspan and Anglin fails to
teach or suggest the limitations of base claim 1 and therefore fails to teach or
suggest the limitation of claim 17. App. Br. 12. Because we find Appellants’
argument in connection with claim 1 and Greenspan unpersuasive of
Examiner error, we likewise find these arguments unpersuasive of error in
connection with the combination. Therefore we sustain the rejection of claim
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Greenspan and
Anglin

Double Patenting
The remaining rejection is the provisional rejection of claims 1-4, 18
and 22 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8 and 5 of copending Application No.
11/268,845. Ans. 3-6. Appellants do not traverse the merits of the rejection,
and indicate that “upon an indication of allowability, the Appellants will file
a terminal disclaimer” (App. Br. 8). Therefore we decline to decide the
appeal as to the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection, as
Appellants have waived any appeal of the rejection.

Appeal 2011-006227
Application 11/269,219
9
CONCLUSIONS
We find Greenspan discloses the disputed claim limitations of claims
1-14, 16, and 18-22 and the combination of Greenspan and Anglin teaches
or suggests the disputed claim limitations of claim 17.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-14 and 16-22 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)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

ELD