Ex Parte ChuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201713485664 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation