DROPBOX INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 23, 2021

2020004131 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 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.
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