Ex Parte Gao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2014

12324963 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014)

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.
12/324,963 11/28/2008 Zhi Guo Gao CN920070047US1 1601
7590 12/03/2014
Anne Vachon Dougherty
3173 Cedar Road
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
EXAMINER
NDIAYE, CHEIKH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ZHI GUO GAO, ZHE XIANG, WEI XUE, and BO YANG
_____________

Appeal 2012-006387
Application 12/324,963
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JASON J.
CHUNG, 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 rejection
of claims 1 through 17.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method to reduce traffic between servers
in a presence system by combining multiple user sets to be allocated to
presence servers. See Abstract of Appellants’ Specification.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for user-management in a presence system, said
presence system comprises multiple presence servers communicating
through a network, said method comprising:
Appeal 2012-006387
Application 12/324,963

2

a combining step, in which multiple user sets, each comprising
a plurality of users, that have a greatest correlation are combined into
a user set to be allocated; and
an allocating step, in which said user set to be allocated is
allocated, for registration of said plurality of users in said user set to
be allocated, to one presence server that can contain said user set
among the multiple presence servers.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Ozugur (US 2006/0167978 A1, published July 27,
2006). Answer 5–17.1
ISSUES
Appellants present several arguments, on pages 11 through 18 of the
Appeal Brief, and pages 1 through 11of the Reply Brief directed to the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9 and 17. The dispositive
issue presented by these arguments is: did the Examiner error in finding
Ozugur teaches a combining step where, multiple user sets, each comprising
a plurality of users, that have a greatest correlation are combined into a user
set to be allocated as recited in each of the independent claims?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated September 19,
2011, Reply Brief dated March 5, 2012 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
on January 3, 2012.
Appeal 2012-006387
Application 12/324,963

3

Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1 through 17.
Appellants’ arguments are directed to the recitation, in independent
claims 1, 9 and 17, combining multiple user sets, each comprising a plurality
of users that have a greatest correlation are combined into a user set to be
allocated. The Examiner, in response to Appellants’ arguments, finds
Ozugur teaches a centralized management system that coordinates
registration (allocation) of presentities. Answer 18. While we concur with
the Examiner that Ozugur teaches registration of presentities and that this
registration may involve adding presentities to others assigned to a server,
this does not meet the claims. The claims recite combining user sets to be
allocated. As argued by Appellants, Ozugur teaches directing new
presentities to be added to a server is adding to a list of presentities which
are already assigned (allocated) and not combining sets to be allocated.
Reply Br. 4–6. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us the
Examiner erred in finding Ozugur teaches combining multiple user sets,
each comprising a plurality of users, that have a greatest correlation are
combined into a user set to be allocated. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 or claims 2
through 8, and 10 through 16 which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 17 is
reversed.

REVERSED

mls