Ex Parte Facemire et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 9, 2015

11751123 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL DENNIS FACEMIRE, GERALD LAVERTE MITCHELL JR., MICHAEL C. WANDERSKI, and GABRIEL AARON COHEN ____________ Appeal 2012-012376 Application 11/751,123 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–30. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. (Br. 1.) Appeal 2012-012376 Application 11/751,123 2 THE INVENTION The claims are directed to an online collaboration system including providing chat rooms to sets of viewers. (Abstract.) Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 8. A computer-implemented method for enhancing online collaboration among viewers in a set of viewers concurrently viewing a presentation having non-localized content segments interspersed with localized content segments comprising: enabling all viewers in said set of viewers to participate in a first online chat room during first portions of the presentation; and enabling each viewer in said set of viewers to participate in two or more additional online chat rooms during other portions of the presentation. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 8, 24, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Moncreiff (WO 1998/021664; May 22, 1998). (Final Act. 2–5.) The Examiner rejected claims 1–4, 6–7, 9–12, 14, 17–20, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moncreiff and Srinivasan et al. (US 2001/0023436 A1; Sept. 20, 2001). (Final Act. 6–11.) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 13, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moncreiff, Srinivasan and Houri (U.S. 2004/0199623 A1; Oct. 7, 2004). (Final Act. 11–13.) Appeal 2012-012376 Application 11/751,123 3 The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moncreiff, Srinivasan and Naidoo (US 6,629,136 B1; Sept. 30, 2003). (Final Act. 13–14.) The Examiner rejected claims 25, 26, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moncreiff, Srinivasan and Harvey et al., (“Harvey”) (US 2002/0059379 A1; May 16, 2002). (Final Act. 14–15.) ISSUE ON APPEAL The substantive issue raised by Appellants’ Appeal Brief is whether Moncreiff discloses a set of viewers, as required by all of the claims. (Br. 6– 7.) 2 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–15); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2–13), and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 30, 2012) and the Answer (mailed June 15, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants properly raised in the Brief. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, or which are made in a conclusory fashion, are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2012). Appeal 2012-012376 Application 11/751,123 4 Appellants argue that Moncreiff does not anticipate claim 8 because it “does not teach or suggest making a first chat room available to all viewers in such a set of viewers because [it] does not deal with sets of users but only an individual viewer,” and “does not teach making chat rooms available to viewers in a set of viewers because [it] does not deal with sets of users.” (Br. 7.) Appellants repeat or refer to that argument as to the other claims at issue. (Br. 7–11.) However, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Moncreiff does disclose sets of viewers. (Ans. 3–4; Moncreiff Figs. 4, 8–9, p. 4, l. 20– p. 5, l. 5, p. 5, ll. 26–30, p. 10, ll. 12–18, p. 12, ll. 6–20.) E.g., “In one chat room, the occupants include ten (10) general audience members, all from the user’s home (local) area. (Moncreiff p. 12, ll. 12–14.) For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 8. As stated above, Appellants repeat the argument — that Moncreiff does not deal with sets of users — in opposition to other claims, including the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 10, and 19. (Br. 7–10.) As to the rejection of claim 1, Appellants further argue that the other cited reference “does nothing to overcome the previously noted deficiencies . . .” of the Moncreiff reference, and therefore the obviousness rejection is improper. (Br. 8.) Appellants make essentially the same argument as to claims 10 and 19. (Br. 9–10.) As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Moncreiff does not deal with sets of users, and therefore we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19. In addition to repeating or referencing the above-discussed argument that Moncreiff does not deal with sets of users, Appellants argue against the rejection of each of dependent claims 3, 12, and 14 by reciting the additional Appeal 2012-012376 Application 11/751,123 5 limitation of that claim, and asserting that the cited references do not teach or suggest that limitation. Such conclusory arguments are unpersuasive, and therefore we sustain those rejections. In addition, we sustain the rejections of claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11, 13, 15–18, and 20–30, which were not argued separately with particularity. We observe no Reply Brief is of record to rebut the Examiner’s findings including the Examiner’s responses to Appellants’ arguments about the disputed features. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us otherwise, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–30 is 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) (2012). AFFIRMED kme