DROPBOX INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 23, 20212020004131 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/396,317 12/30/2016 Adam Cue 381805-302306/P489USC1 1014 136442 7590 08/23/2021 DLA Piper LLP (US) 11911 Freedom Dr. Suite 300 Reston, VA 20190 EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2452 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2021 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): BostonIPDocketing@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADAM CUE, GEORGE MILTON, and TIM VAN DAMME Appeal 2020-004131 Application 15/396,317 Technology Center 2400 BEFORE, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, JASON J. CHUNG, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Dropbox, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004131 Application 15/396,317 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are generally directed to “management of electronic messages and in particular to dynamically generating filters in a message management service based on user actions.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21. A method comprising: detecting, at a computer device, a gesture input corresponding to an action to be performed on at least one message for a user, wherein the gesture input includes a hold portion and a transverse portion; analyzing, by the computer device, the gesture input to identify the action to be performed on the at least one message, wherein the action to be performed is identified based on a length and a direction associated with the transverse portion; displaying, by the computer device, based on the analysis, a list of selectable options related to the action, the list of selectable options unique to the length and direction associated with the action's transverse portion; receiving, by the computer device, data indicating a selection of a selectable option in the list of selectable options, the selection associated with the at least one message; and sending the data indicating the selection associated with the at least one message from the computer device to a computing system of a message management service, to define a rule based on the selection indicated by the data and based on the action, wherein the rule indicates a new action to be performed on future messages satisfying the rule. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Appeal 2020-004131 Application 15/396,317 3 Name Reference Date Simpson US 2004/0088359 A1 May 6, 2004 Schrock US 2012/0290946 Al Nov. 15, 2012 iOS Guides, “How to Flag, forward, Move and Delete emails in IOS7” pp. 1–4, July 15, 2013. (“iOS7”). REJECTION(S) The Examiner rejected claims 21–41 under the nonstatuory double patenting doctrine as unpatentable over claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent 9,537,805. Final Act. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 21–41 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Schrock, iOS7, and Simpson. Final Act. 4–8. OPINION THE DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION Claims 21–41 The Examiner maintains the double patenting rejection of claims 21– 41. See Ans. 2. As the Examiner points out, Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to this rejection. Ans. 2. As such, we summarily affirm the double patenting rejection of claims 21–41 as unpatentable over claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent 9,537,805.2 2 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Mar. 2014, Rev. November 2015) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the [E]xaminer is not addressed in the [A]ppellant's brief, [A]ppellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the [E]xaminer subsequently withdrew the rejection in the [E]xaminer's [A]nswer.”). See also 37 C.F.R. 41.39(a)(1). Appeal 2020-004131 Application 15/396,317 4 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON SCHROCK, IOS7, AND SIMPSON Claims 21–41 Appellant argues that Schrock, iOS7, and Simpson fail to teach or suggest “displaying, by the computer device, based on the analysis, a list of selectable options related to the action, the list of selectable options unique to the length and direction associated with the action's transverse portion.” Appeal Br. 5–7. Appellant asserts that iOS7 only teaches displaying a list of selectable options based on a direction and not “unique to the length and direction” of the action’s traverse portion. Appeal Br. 6–7. According to Appellant: In particular, in order for iOS7 to teach this limitation, the burden is on the Examiner to show that the reference teaches (1) displaying a list of selectable objects unique to the length associated with the action's transverse portion; and (2) displaying a list of selectable objects unique to the direction associated with the action's transverse portion. The Appellant respectfully submits that at no point does iOS7 contemplate displaying differing lists of selectable objects, based on a length of the action’s transverse portion. For example, at no point does iOS7 teach that the swipe from right to left depend on a length of that motion. Instead, the information displayed to the user (“more” and “trash” objects) are dependent solely on the direction of the action's transverse portion. There is simply no support in iOS7 for anything further. Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner, however, responds that iOS7’s swipe has a particular or unique direction and length. Ans. 3. The Examiner explains, a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of the claimed limitation includes a gesture input of a single length and single direction. Ans. 3. The Examiner also analogizes “the claim broadly covers left swipes of a particular length Appeal 2020-004131 Application 15/396,317 5 bringing up one list and right swipes of a particular length (with those two lengths being the same) bringing up something else. . . .” Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner. Namely, a gesture input with a single length and direction, such as the swipe of iOS7, has a unique length and direction. See Ans. 3–4. The Specification expressly describes, “Different actions may be associated with different directions and/or with the length of the user’s swipe.” Spec. 50 (emphasis added). As such, the Specification does not support requiring consideration of both the length and direction. Moreover, Appellant’s reliance on the varying lengths with a single direction is unavailing. As the Examiner points out, the converse of varying directions with a single length would also satisfy the claimed limitation. As such, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 21–41 as unpatentable over Schrock, iOS7, and Simpson. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 21–41 as (1) unpatentable under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting and (2) unpatentable over Schrock, iOS7, and Simpson are affirmed. Appeal 2020-004131 Application 15/396,317 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21–41 Non-statutory Obviousness Type Double Patenting, US 9,537,805 21–41 21–41 103 Schrock, iOS7, and Simpson 21–41 Overall Outcome 21–41 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation