2019005941 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2021)

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 26, 2021

2019005941 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2021)

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. 13/769,521 02/18/2013 Kenneth L. Robbins RSW920130025US1 3489 106324 7590 01/26/2021 IBM Corp. - Fishkill Drafting Center SVL 650 Harry Road, Almaden Research Center C4TA/J2B San Jose, CA 95120 EXAMINER HEFFERN, JAMES E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2021 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): fdciplaw@us.ibm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENNETH L. ROBBINS Appeal 2019-005941 Application 13/769,521 Technology Center 2100 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26–31, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-005941 Application 13/769,521 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to “the use of out-of-office and on-vacation information” to narrow which target recipients will receive “bulk communications campaigns.” Spec. ¶¶ 1–2, claim 26. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Claim 26 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations at issue emphasized: 26. A computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium; and computer usable code stored on the computer readable storage medium, where, when executed by a processor, the computer usable code causes a computer to: receive a bulk communications database from a brokering system and obtain a first set of recipients from the database, wherein the brokering system aggregates away status information from a plurality of different collectors remote from the brokering system that have different architectures, each of the plurality of different collectors determining an away status from analyzing an item selected from a group consisting of a bounce-back message, a web form, and a byproduct of an electronic transaction, wherein analyzing the bounce-back message comprises parsing the bounce-back message for contact information and date information; remove the first set of recipients from a second set of recipients associated with a bulk communications campaign to obtain a third set of recipients; apply a cryptographic hash function to contact information corresponding to the second set of recipients to obtain first cryptographic information; submit the first cryptographic information to the brokering system; and send a first message to the third set of recipients. Appeal 2019-005941 Application 13/769,521 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art: Name Reference Date McKenna US 2010/0011205 A1 Jan. 14, 2010 Waller US 2007/0250904 A1 Oct. 25, 2007 Wheeler US 9,313,151 B1 Apr. 12, 2016 REJECTION Claims 26–31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wheeler, McKenna, and Waller. Final Act. 10. ANALYSIS Independent claim 26 recites “the brokering system aggregates away status information from a plurality of different collectors remote from the brokering system that have different architectures.” Appellant argues that neither Wheeler nor McKenna teach or suggest the claimed plurality. Appeal Br. 17–19. The Examiner finds: McKenna teaches “a plurality of different collectors remote from the brokering system that have different architectures”, as referenced, “Affiliate system 104 represents a system of an affiliate party whose list of email addresses can be “rented” by one or more marketers. Affiliate system 104 may store a list or set of email addresses 112 (“affiliate list”) that the affiliate may “rent” out to other marketers”, (See McKenna [0024]). An “affiliate”, by definition, is defined as “a person or organization officially attached to a larger body”. In McKenna, the “affiliate party” would be considered a single collector, so the “affiliate system” would be considered “a plurality of different collectors remote from the brokering system that have different architectures”. Ans. 4–5 (emphasis omitted). Appeal 2019-005941 Application 13/769,521 4 However, we agree with Appellant that “Paragraph [0024] of McKenna at best appears to only discuss an affiliate system 104 that represents a system of an affiliate party.” Reply Br. 7. Nothing in that paragraph discusses either (A) multiple affiliate systems acting as collectors or (B) the “affiliate party” acting as a collector other than via “affiliate system 104.” Thus, the Examiner has not shown that McKenna teaches or suggests the claimed plurality of different collectors. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 26 and its dependent claims 27–31. OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 26–31 103(a) Wheeler, McKenna, Waller 26–31 REVERSED