Ex Parte Chu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2017

13485664 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 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.
13/485,664 05/31/2012 Enlai Chu 336548-US-NP 8796
69316 7590 12/14/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
PATEL, HITESHKUMAR R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ENLAI CHU
Appeal 2017-006152
Application 13/485,664
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2017-006152
Application 13/485,664
INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to a method for use in
messaging services, in which a temporary sender identifiers can be assigned
to a message. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a message originator, a message service
message intended for one or more message recipients;
automatically assigning a sender ID to the message
service message based on:
a geographic destination of the message service
message; and
a service provider associated with each of the one
or more message recipients; and
causing the message service message to be routed to the
one or more message recipients with data indicating that the
message is originated from the sender ID instead of from a
number associated with the message originator.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 6, 8, and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Clontz (US 2007/0177568 Al,
published Aug. 2, 2007) and Gonen (US 2006/0205404 Al, published Sept.
14,2006). Final Act. 3-7.1
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed October 24,
2016, the Reply Brief, filed February 27, 2017, the Final Office Action,
mailed May 23, 2016, and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 27,
2016.
2
Appeal 2017-006152
Application 13/485,664
The Examiner has rejected claims 4, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Clontz, Gonen, and Yahav (US 2010/0069095
Al, published Mar. 18, 2010). Final Act. 7—12.
The Examiner has rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Clontz, Gonen, Yahav, and Bramwell (US 2011/0294472
A1, published Dec. 1,2011). Final Act. 12—15.
The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 10 through 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Clontz, Gonen, and Haumont (US
2004/0180676 Al, published Sept. 16, 2004). Final Act. 15-16.
The Examiner has rejected claims 10 through 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Clontz, Gonen, Haumont, and Heitzeberg (US
2007/0220092 Al, published Sept. 20, 2007). Final Act. 16—23.
The Examiner has rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Clontz, Gonen, Haumont, Heitzeberg and Yahav. Final
Act. 23-24.
The Examiner has rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Clontz, Gonen, Yahav, and Haumont. Final Act. 24—25.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We disagree with
Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10
3
Appeal 2017-006152
Application 13/485,664
through 17. However, we concur with Appellant that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 through 9 and 18 through 20.
Independent Claim 1
Appellant asserts the rejection of independent claim 1 is in error as
claim 1 is directed to assigning a sender ID to a message based upon on the
geographic destination of the message and the service provider associated
with one or more of the recipients. App. Br. 13—15. Specifically, Appellant
argues that Gonen, which the Examiner relies upon to teach this feature,
teaches assigning a local number to a handset, but does not teach changing
the message identifier based upon the destination of a message and the
service provider of a recipient. App. Br. 13—14.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments citing paragraphs
43, 47 through 50, and 165 as teaching the disputed feature. Answer 4—5.
We have reviewed the teachings of Gonen cited by the Examiner. We
concur with the Examiner concerning the geographic location of the
message destination. Changing to a local number so that a message receiver
can respond to a local number meets the claimed, changing ID based on the
geographic destination of the message. See Gonen para 50, see also para
146. However, we do not find that Gonen teaches changing the ID based
upon the service provider associated with one or more of the recipients.
Paragraph 50, cited by the Examiner as teaching this feature, is directed to
the service provider of the caller not the service provider of the recipient as
claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1. The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2 through 9 similarly relies
4
Appeal 2017-006152
Application 13/485,664
upon Gonen to teach the disputed features of claim 1, accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 9.
Independent Claim 10
Appellant asserts the rejection of independent claim 10 is in error as
the combination of Clontz, Gonen, Haumont, and Heitzeberg would render
Haumont unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 16—20.
Appellant asserts that:
Although Heitzeberg’s assigned phone number may be
associated with multiple users, Haumont’s individual and
common MSISDNs are each assigned to an individual user.
Thus, the proposed combination of Haumont and Heitzeberg
would result in a situation where two or more different users
would share a common number in Haumont’s database. In this
situation, Haumont’s subscription broker would receive a query
regarding a first user’s IMSI and may return an individual
MSISDN belonging to a second user. Thus, the proposed
combination of Heitzeberg’s shared phone numbers into
Haumont’s database would render Haumont’s query responses
untrustworthy and thereby frustrate the purpose of Haumont’s
terminal management server.
App. Br. 19-20.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments by stating that the
Appellant’s arguments are premised upon different rationale than provided
by the Examiner. Answer 7. Further, the Examiner provides the following
rationale to combine the references:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention was made to
implement Heitzeberg teachings into Clontz- Gonen-
Haumont’s teaching for individual ones of the shared numbers
configured to be simultaneously assigned to two or more
message originators. This combination would provide access to
5
Appeal 2017-006152
Application 13/485,664
that forum to other group members, and to provide notifications
to group members when new messages or content are posted to
the forum.
Answer 11.
We have reviewed the teachings of Heitzeberg and Haumont cited by
Appellant in the Briefs and the Examiner’s rationale to combine the
references. We concur with the Examiner’s stated rationale to combine the
teachings. The use of a shared number simultaneously assigned to more
than one user allows multiple recipients to access a group form. Thus,
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of
claim 10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 10
and claims 11 through 16 grouped with claim 10. Appellant has not
provided arguments directed to dependent claim 17, accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 for the same reasons as claim 10.
Independent Claim 18
Appellant asserts the rejection of independent claim 18 is in error as
claim 18 is directed to assigning a sender ID to the message for each of the
multiple message recipients based upon on the geographic destination of the
message, comprising automatically assigning a sender ID to multiple
message recipients. App. Br. 20-22. Specifically, Appellant argues that
Yahav which the Examiner relies upon to teach this limitation teaches that a
user may have individual communication sessions with other users but not
that one message intended for multiple recipients. App. Br. 22.
The Examiner responds by citing to Yahav, teaches multiple
recipients of a message citing message 120 and 124 destine for recipients
6
Appeal 2017-006152
Application 13/485,664
12(1) and 12(2). Answer 15, citing Figures 3A, 4, and paragraphs 37
through 40.
We agree with Appellant. Claim 18 recites a message intended for
multiple recipients. Figure 3 A of Yahav is depicting one user have two
communication sessions 120 and 124 with two users, not one message going
to two users. See, e.g., para. 33, “Fig. 3A illustrates three individual
communication sessions 120,122, and 124.” Thus, Appellant’s arguments
directed to claim 18 have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 18, and claim 20 grouped with claim 18. The Examiner’s rejection
of dependent claim 19 similarly relies upon Yahav to teach the disputed
features of claim 18, accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 19.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10 through
17.
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 9
and 18 through 20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7