Ex Parte Coutts

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2017

14330018 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 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.
14/330,018 07/14/2014 Daryl David Coutts 3531
79343 7590
DARYL D. COUTTS
1505 Wentworth Villas SW
Calgary, AB T3H 0K7
CANADA
EXAMINER
COONEY, ADAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2017 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):
ddcoutts @ shaw .ca
dcoutts@marengolabs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARYL DAVID COUTTS
Appeal 2017-003648
Application 14/330,018
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
rejection of claims 1 through 3.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for facilitating multiple
simultaneous instant messaging conversations. See Abstract. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method implemented in an application executing on a
computing device associated with a user, the method facilitating
Appeal 2017-003648
Application 14/330,018
multiple simultaneous instant messaging conversations, the
method comprising:
receiving a first online instant message from a first instant
messaging conversation, the user a participant in the first instant
messaging conversation;
receiving a second online instant message from a second
instant messaging conversation, the user a participant in the
second instant messaging conversation;
receiving a third online instant message;
integrating the first online instant message and the second
online instant message and the third online instant message into
a first sequence of instant messages;
displaying the first sequence of instant messages in a first
window on a display associated with the computing device, the
displaying such that more recently received instant messages are
displayed one of below and above less recently received instant
messages, in the plane of the display and wherein the displaying
is such that each of the first online instant message, the second
online instant message and the third online instant message are
visible and wherein the displaying is such that the displayed first
sequence of instant messages is scrollable by the user; and
responsive to a mouse click directed at the displayed first
sequence of instant messages and without requiring further user
input, displaying a second sequence of instant messages in a
second window on the display, the second sequence of instant
messages primarily comprising plural instant messages from the
first instant messaging conversation and wherein the displaying
of the second sequence of instant messages is such that more
recently received instant messages are displayed one of below
and above less recently received instant messages, in the plane
of the display and wherein the displaying of the second sequence
of instant messages in the second window is such that the
displayed first sequence of instant messages in the first window
is also visible.
2
Appeal 2017-003648
Application 14/330,018
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deshpande (US 2006/0174207 Al, pub. Aug. 3, 2006)
Etgen (2007/0180040 Al, pub. Aug. 2, 2007) and Heikes (US 7,653,693 B2,
iss. Jan. 26, 2010). Final Act. 7—16.1
The Examiner has rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deshpande, Etgen, Fuoss (US 7,003,308 Bl, iss. Feb. 21,
2006), and Heikes. Final Act. 16—21.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 2,
and 3 is in error as the combination of the references does not teach
“responsive to a selection or mouse click directed at a displayed first
sequence of instant messages and without requiring further user input,
displaying a second sequence of instant messages in a second window on the
display, the second sequence of instant messages primarily comprising
plural instant messages from the first instant messaging conversation.” App.
Br. 6-7.
In response to Appellants’ arguments the Examiner states:
Etgen discloses if a user determines that a portion of an existing
thread belongs in a different thread, using a mouse (emphasis
added), the user drag-and-drops a conversation element to a
second sub-window, while the other conversation elements
remain in the first sub-window (see Etgen; paragraph 0024 and
1 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 4, 2016)
(“Appeal Br.”), Final Office Action (mailed July 31, 2015) (“Final Act.”),
and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed September 30, 2016) (“Ans.”).
3
Appeal 2017-003648
Application 14/330,018
Figures 6A-6C items 601 and 602). In other words, Etgen
discloses a mouse is used to perform the drag-and-drop feature,
and as such the action is responsive to a mouse click. While a
drag-and-drop feature may include further user input (i.e. more
than one mouse click or action), Heikes discloses a message
interface that includes control buttons to access instant message
functionality such as using only a single click.
Ans. 19.
We have reviewed the teachings of both Etgen and Heikes and do not
find the references teach selecting, a displayed first sequence of an instant
message, results in displaying a second sequence of an instant message in
another window without further user input as recited in each of independent
claims 1 through 3. As identified by the Examiner, Etgen teaches a user can
select and move portions of an instant message by dragging and dropping
which involves more user action than just selecting the portion of the instant
message. See paras. 24 and 25. Further, the portions of Heikes, which the
Examiner cites to show a single click to act on a text message, does not
teach the single click is on the instant message as claimed. The cited
passage of Heikes teaches the instant message has already been selected and
the cited one click is on a button to operate on the selected text message.
See Heikers col. 3,1. 43—col. 4.1. 4. Thus, Heikes similarly teaches an
interaction, which involves more user action than just selecting the portion
of the instant message. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1,2, and 3.
4
Appeal 2017-003648
Application 14/330,018
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 3 is reversed.
REVERSED
5