Ex Parte Channabasavaiah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2017

12401649 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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. 12/401,649 03/11/2009 Kishore Channabasavaiah END920080239US1 6235 79980 7590 03/ Keohane & D'Alessandro 1881 Western Avenue Suite 180 Albany, NY 12203 EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3687 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2017 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): drubbone @ kdiplaw. com Docket @ Kdiplaw .com lcronk @ kdiplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KISHORE CHANNABASAVAIAH, SRI RAMANATHAN, MATTHEW B. TREVATHAN, RAGHU VARADAN, and NEVENKO ZUNIC Appeal 2014—008497 Application 12/401,649 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Kishore Channabasavaiah, Sri Ramanathan, Matthew B. Trevathan, Raghu Varadan, and Nevenko Zunic (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1, 3—6, 8—11, 13—16, and 18— 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed January 14, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 21, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 21, 2014), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 15, 2013). Appeal 2014-008497 Application 12/401,649 20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellants invented a way of providing presence driven notification to a subscriber when a business process automation chain requires manual intervention. Specification para. 1. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A method for transmitting a notification message of a business process task to be performed to a person, comprising the computer implemented steps of: [1] monitoring an automated business process execution language (BPEL) process flow to determine an instance in which a human action is required; [2] monitoring for a notification communication indicating the instance in which a human action is required; [3] receiving the notification communication; [4] accessing data including presence data related to the person and data associated with the person's preferences from a server database, the person's preferences comprising a pre-specified preferred device communication order and communication type for each of a set of locations; [5] making a routing decision based on the data; [6] transmitting the notification message relating to a business process task to be performed based on the routing decision to the person; and 2 Appeal 2014-008497 Application 12/401,649 [7] returning control to a BPEL execution chain to resume the automated BPEL process flow following performance of the business process task. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Arellano US 2004/0223485 A1 Nov. 11, 2004 Hymel US 2005/0026600 A1 Feb. 3,2005 Oracle BPEL Process Manager Developers Guide (January 2007) Claims 1, 3—6, 8—11, 13—16, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arellano, Oracle, and Hymel. ISSUES The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes preferences comprising a pre-specified preferred device communication order and communication type for each of a set of locations. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Arellano 01. Arellano is directed to delivering notification messages from messaging networks. Arellano para. 2. 3 Appeal 2014-008497 Application 12/401,649 02. Arellano’s notification service node may serve a single user, in which case each notification message is forwarded to one or more network-enabled devices associated with the single user. Alternatively, the notification service node may serve multiple users, in which case each notification message is forwarded to one or more network-enabled devices associated with its intended recipient user. Regardless of whether a single user or multiple users are served, the notification service node forwards each notification message to a current device associated with the user who is the intended recipient. Preferably, the current device is one of the user’s network-enabled devices that is either closest in proximity to the user or has most recently experienced user activity. Arellano paras. 15—16. 03. To determine the current device for the particular user, each of the network-enabled devices may have a respective user activity detector that may detect user activity similar to a screen saver program by detecting user-initiated input actions. Alternatively, a user location detector may be used to assign one of the network- enabled devices as the current device. The user location detector may comprise an agent monitoring a network of sensors to determine a user location, and determine which of the network- enabled devices is closest in proximity to the particular user. The current device may be assigned as the closest one of the network- enabled devices. Arellano paras. 21—22. 4 Appeal 2014-008497 Application 12/401,649 Oracle 04. Oracle is directed to Oracle’s BPEL Process Manager. Oracle Title. 05. BPEL is an XML-based language for enabling task sharing across multiple enterprises using a combination of Web services. BPEL is based on the XML schema, simple object access protocol (SOAP), and Web services description language (WSDL). BPEL provides enterprises with an industry standard for business process orchestration and execution. Using BPEL, one designs a business process that integrates a series of discrete services into an end-to- end process flow. Oracle 1-1. 06. The notification service in Oracle BPEL Process Manager enables one to send notifications from a BPEL process using a variety of channels. Oracle BPEL Process Manager can deliver these notifications by e-mail, voice message, fax, pager, or short message service (SMS). Oracle 14-1. Hymel 07. Hymel is directed to management of communications with one or more contacts using a communication device. Hymel para. 2. ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the prior art fails to describe routing according to preferences comprising a pre-specified preferred device communication order and communication type for each of a 5 Appeal 2014-008497 Application 12/401,649 set of locations. Claim 1; Appeal Br. 13—15. The Examiner cites portions of Arellano that select routing based on device location proximity rather than on preferences sorted by preferred device communication order and communication type for each of a set of locations. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner goes on to find that Arellano is functionally equivalent. Ans. 11. This finding conflates function with implementation. The Examiner has not shown why the specific implementation for the routing function in the claim is not patentably distinct from Arellano’s differing implementation. Even at a superficial level, there is a distinction in the level of user control between routing based on user preferences and based on physical proximity. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1, 3—6, 8—11, 13—16, and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arellano, Oracle, and Hymel is improper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 3—6, 8—11, 13—16, and 18—20 is reversed. REVERSED 6