David Gerard. Ledet

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 2, 2020

2019001791 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2020)

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. 14/705,231 05/06/2015 David Gerard Ledet DL1614A 8251 84646 7590 06/02/2020 Proactive Patents LLC 955 Garden Park Drive Ste 230 Allen, TX 75013 EXAMINER RILEY, MARCUS T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2677 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2020 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com mzarinelli@proactivepatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID GERARD LEDET ____________ Appeal 2019-001791 Application 14/705,231 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–21, which constitute all of the claims pending in this 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Open Invention Network LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-001791 Application 14/705,231 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention generally relates to a “message guard system,” and more particularly, to “a system that prevent[s] unsuitable communications from being transmitted to another device.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A process, comprising: receiving, by a system, a message composed by a user of a client device; determining, by the system, whether the composed message comprises inappropriate terms, phrases, objects, or a combination thereof, wherein the determining occurs as the user types the message; when the message comprises inappropriate terms, phrases, objects, or a combination thereof, assigning a code to the message, by the system, wherein the code identifies a respective reason that the message failed validation; and transmitting, by the system, a notification back to the user composing the message when the composed message comprises inappropriate terms, phrases, or objects, the notification comprising a section of the message where the validation failed, the code, and a reason for failure associated with the code. REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kay et al. (US 2006/0095524 A1; published May 4, 2006) (“Kay”), Pabla et al. (US 2013/0283401 A1; published Oct. 24, 2013) (“Pabla”), and Thaker (US 2012/0135705 A1; published May 31, 2012). Final Act. 3. Appeal 2019-001791 Application 14/705,231 3 ANALYSIS Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kay, Pabla, and Thaker teaches or suggests “when the message comprises inappropriate terms, phrases, objects, or a combination thereof, assigning a code to the message, by the system, wherein the code identifies a respective reason that the message failed validation,” as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 8 and 15? The Examiner finds that Thaker teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Final Act. 6 (citing Thaker ¶ 43, Fig. 6); Ans. 13–14, 16. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Thaker’s “Code9 tool analyzes text message content for key words or slang selected by parents. Messages containing these words can be flagged or blocked. Parents can select messages that contain offensive words, or words indicating drug use, bullying, stalking, or despair.” Ans. 13. The Examiner finds that the claimed code, described in the Specification as including “an enumerated representation,” encompasses an “ordinary dictionary definition which [] ‘mention[s] (a number of things) one by one.’” Ans. 13 (citing Spec. ¶ 83). Therefore, the Examiner finds that “words indicating drug use, bullying, stalking, or despair are enumerated and assigned to the flagged words, [so] one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably interpret this as assigning a code to the message, by the system.” Ans. 14. Appellant argues that Thaker “is silent as to assigning a code to a message when it contains inappropriate content” and “is silent as to any such code identifying a respective reason that the message failed validation.” Appeal Br. 16–17; see id. at 20; Reply Br. 6–7. Specifically, Appellant argues “that ‘flagging and blocking’ in Thaker cannot reasonably be Appeal 2019-001791 Application 14/705,231 4 interpreted as assigning a code to a message when it contains inappropriate content.” Appeal Br. 19 (emphasis omitted). Appellant also asserts that “[t]he ‘nature and frequency’ of alarm words does not disclose such a code.” Reply Br. 8. The Examiner is correct that the Specification does not provide an explicit definition of “code.” See Ans. 13–14. However, the Specification describes “a code of the result of the validation” that “can be a numerical representation, an enumerated representation, or a similar code.” Spec. ¶ 83. The Specification provides examples of “possible codes that can be implemented,” such as “1” for “Racist” or “4” for “Damaging to Character.” Id. ¶ 84, Table 3. The “code value . . . indicates that the invalidation was due to” a specific reason, such as “damaging to [] character.” Id. ¶ 88. Both the claim language (for assigning a code to a message to “identif[y] a respective reason that the message failed validation”) and the Specification (assigning a numeric code value to a message to indicate the reason for the failed validation) supports that a code is a value representing the reason a message fails validation. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Thaker discloses: Code9 tool analyzes text message content for key words or slang selected by parents. Messages containing these words or phrases can be flagged or blocked . . . [including] messages that contain offensive words, or words indicating drug use, bullying, stalking, or despair. A database can be established to provide warnings automatically in order to take special notice of certain words . . . the parent can set up rules that will, if triggered, allow the parent to see the full content of those potentially dangerous messages. Additionally, Code9 provides summary reporting showing how your children use their phones (who, when, how often) . . . [including] the nature and frequency of ‘alarm’ words. Appeal 2019-001791 Application 14/705,231 5 Thaker ¶ 43 (emphases added). We do not see, and the Examiner has not sufficiently explained, how Thaker’s disclosure teaches or suggests “assigning a code to the message” that “identifies a respective reason that the message failed validation,” as claimed. Rather, Thaker teaches reporting that a message fails validation and the reason it fails validation (e.g., the nature and frequency of “alarm” words), but Thaker does not describe assigning a code that represents the reason a message fails validation or assigning such a code to the message. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. On this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16– 21. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–21 103 Kay, Pabla, Thaker 1–21 REVERSED