Ex Parte Brun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2012

11287170 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

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. 11/287,170 11/23/2005 Caroline Brun 20050633USNP-XER1091US01 3008 62095 7590 09/26/2012 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER 1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR THE HALLE BUILDING CLEVELAND, OH 44115 EXAMINER NAJJAR, SALEH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2492 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2012 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 CAROLINE BRUN and CAROLINE HAGEGE ____________ Appeal 2010-001019 Application 11/287,170 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-001019 Application 11/287,170 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 2-9 and 11-24. Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to an email organizer that determines action deadlines associated with action items. Appeal Brief 5. Illustrative Claim 2. An email organizer comprising: a syntactic processor for performing syntactic analysis on a plurality of email messages to determine action deadlines associated with action items specified in the email messages; a scorer that assigns priority scores to the email messages based at least on the determined action deadlines and a current date; and a viewer setting forth the email messages sorted by priority score. Rejection on Appeal Claims 2-9 and 11-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Sood (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0010217 A1; published January 12, 2006). Answer 2-5. Appeal 2010-001019 Application 11/287,170 3 Issue on Appeal Does Sood teach an email organizer that performs analysis on a plurality of email messages to determine action deadlines and assigns priority based upon determined action deadlines and a current date? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Sood discloses performing syntactic analysis on a plurality of email messages to determine action deadlines associated with item specified in email messages because: Although, it is possible for the sender to set the priority of the message, Sood still discloses that a message content can be parsed by keyword (see paragraphs 186-188) and that content can be evaluated by keyword to determine an action deadline (see paragraph 121). In this case, the message is “the wedding ceremony begins promptly at noon”. Sood shows that if the event will occur in the future it will most likely have a higher Situational Priority. Therefore, the Examiner believes that Sood makes a connection between inherent evaluation and situational evaluation. Sood] system will break the message up into keywords and determine the importance and priority based on a number of factors while still keeping the deadline in mind (i.e. “If the event will occur in the future it will most likely having a higher Situational Priority”). In regards to Appellants remarks concerning that there is no connection between the inherent evaluation and the situational evaluation, Sood says in paragraph 121, the function combining the Situational and Inherent will equate the actual message priority more accurately than a static evaluation of the message. Therefore, the inherent evaluation and the situational evaluation are in fact connected. Answer 6. Appeal 2010-001019 Application 11/287,170 4 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reliance upon Sood’s paragraph [0121] is misplaced because at most, Sood discloses that an action deadline may be indicated within the text of an email message. Appellants conclude that this does not disclose, or even suggest, determining the action deadline based upon syntactic analysis of the message content as claimed. Reply Brief 6. Appellants argue: The date and time of the wedding ceremony is certainly an action deadline. But, nothing in ¶[0121] remotely suggests (much less expressly or inherently discloses) determining that action deadline based on the content of the message. “The event dimension for this example is that the message arrived, and when the actions in the message will take place.” ¶[0121]. Yes, “when the actions in the message will be taken” is an action deadline - but how is that action deadline determined? Well, the action deadline is specified in Sood to be an event dimension, and event dimensions are part of the situational priority analysis. Sood ¶[0118]. And how is the situational priority determined? It is provided by the sender. See Sood ¶ ¶ [0150]-[0152]. So, a fair reading of Sood ¶[0121] is that the sender takes into account the action deadline in setting the situational priority when sending the message. Sood ¶ [0151]. This is nothing more than the sender setting a priority flag in an email message (cf. present application ¶[0003]). Reply Brief 6. The Examiner further finds: Furthermore, the claims merely mention determining action deadlines associated with action items specified in the email messages. Even if the date of the deadline was supplied by the sender, the syntactic processor still determines the deadlines based on the syntactic analysis. That is, by parsing the message, the email program of the recipient knows that a deadline is Appeal 2010-001019 Application 11/287,170 5 approaching and gives it higher priority. The claim does not mention anything about how the sender cannot supply the action deadline. The claim merely suggests “determining action deadlines associated with action items specified in the email”; the action items being interpreted as phrases such as “the wedding ceremony begins promptly at noon” as taught by Sood. If noon is approaching, the priority level increases. The claim is silent about analyzing an email for a date and time to determine an action deadline or that the deadline is determined without the reliance of the sender. Answer 6. Claim 2 merely recites, “a syntactic processor for performing syntactic analysis on a plurality of email messages to determine action deadlines associated with action items specified in the email messages.” We agree with the Examiner’s findings that the language of claim 2 does not prohibit the sender from supplying the action deadline or as Appellants equate, “setting a priority flag.” Therefore we do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive in regard to the origin of the action deadline for the reasons stated above. Further, we note that the argued features merely pertain to statements of intended use (of the recited syntactic processor) recited in claim 2: “a syntactic processor for performing syntactic analysis on a plurality of email messages to determine action deadlines associated with action items specified in the email messages” (claim 2). “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear Appeal 2010-001019 Application 11/287,170 6 in the claim's preamble,” a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 and independent claims 20 and 21 that are commensurate in scope, as well as claims 3-9 and 11-19 dependent therefrom. DECISION The rejections of claims 2-9 and 11-24 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED llw