Ex Parte Itani

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2017

13757926 (P.T.A.B. May. 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.
13/757,926 02/04/2013 Majed Itani 1301-028U 3080
112025 7590
CRGO LAW
7900 Glades Road
Suite 520
Boca Raton, EL 33434
05/16/2017 EXAMINER
WONG, LESLIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAJED ITANI
Appeal 2017-002185
Application 13/757,9261
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—21, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, SugarCRM, Inc. is the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed March 29, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed November 21, 2016 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 19, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office
Action mailed October 1, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification
filed February 4, 2013 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2017-002185
Application 13/757,926
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “selectively importing contacts from
external sources into a contact management system.” Spec. 12; Abstract.
Claims 1,8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellant’s invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics'.
1. A method for autonomic selective importation of contacts in a
contact management system, the method comprising:
monitoring communication exchanges between an end user and
different contacts over a communications network through at least one
external communications application;
rating the different contacts of the end user according to frequency of
communication exchanges with the end user evident from the monitored
communications; and,
importing a selected one of the different contacts into a contact data
store of a contact management system of the end user responsive to a
determination that the selected one of the different contacts has been rated
beyond a threshold value.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1—5, 8—12, and 15—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Schwendimann et al. (US 2012/0271822
Al; published Oct. 25, 2012; “Schwendimann”). Final Act. 2—8.
(2) Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schwendimann and Sinha (US 2012/0030588 Al;
published Feb. 2, 2002). Final Act. 8—9.
2
Appeal 2017-002185
Application 13/757,926
(3) Claims 7, 14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schwendimann and Riazzi et al. (US 2012/0232955
Al; published Sep. 13, 2012; “Riazzi”). Final Act. 9—10.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether Schwendimann discloses the disputed limitation:
importing a selected one of the different contacts into a contact
data store of a contact management system of the end user
responsive to a determination that the selected one of the
different contacts has been rated beyond a threshold value[,]
as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15.
App. Br. 4—8; see also Reply Br. 2-4.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1—5, 8—12, and 15—19
In support of the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1,8, and
15, the Examiner finds Schwendimann discloses a method for autonomic
selective importation of contacts in a contact management system, including:
“importing a selected one of the different contacts into a contact
data store of a contact management system of the end user
responsive to a determination that the selected one of the
different contacts has been rated beyond a threshold value”
in the form of returning suggested or smart contact information [of contacts
rated beyond a threshold value] to a central user and updating such results,
via a suggestion content provider (database) 150, shown in Figures 1 and 3.
Final Act. 3-A (citing Schwendimann || 38—39, Figures 1 and 3).
3
Appeal 2017-002185
Application 13/757,926
Schwendimann’s Figure 1 shows a rule-based system for providing
suggestions of preferred contacts for a central user of a mobile device, as
reproduced below:
Jm
SUGGESTIONS PROVIDER [BROADCAST iNTENTj
Schwendimann’s Figure 1 shows a rule-based system 100 implemented on a
mobile device for establishing preferred contacts for a central user.
As shown in Schwendimann’s Figure 1, the rule-based system 100
includes a data collection device 110 arranged to capture user’s interaction
with other users (contacts) according to the frequency of use; and a base rule
checker servicer 120 arranged to collect data, evaluate rule based on
collected data, and record new results, i.e., “update of cached contacts and
data suggestions results in a suggestions ContentProvider [database] 150.”
Schwendimann || 18—21,27.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
Schwendimann. In particular, Appellant contends Schwendimann does not
4
Appeal 2017-002185
Application 13/757,926
disclose the disputed limitation: “importing a selected one of the different
contacts into a contact data store of a contact management system of the end
user responsive to a determination that the selected one of the different
contacts has been rated beyond a threshold value,” as recited in Appellant’s
independent claims 1, 8, and 15. App. Br. 5—8. Appellant acknowledges
“Schwendimann [] teaches the existence of contacts in a suggestions
database and the insertion of contacts in the suggestions database that pass a
rule.” App. Br. 8. However, Appellant argues neither the cited paragraphs
38—39 nor the cited Figures 1 and 3 of Schwendimann disclose any (1)
“importing of contacts”, (2) “no database [that] imports anything”, and (3)
“there is no rating of any contact before it is stored in the ‘suggestion db’
and therefore no ‘importing’ of a ‘contact’ into a contact data store of a
contact management system of the end user.” App. Br. 6—8.
In addition, Appellant acknowledges Schwendimann teaches updating
results of suggested or smart contact information [of contacts rated beyond a
threshold value] in the “Sqlite3 database,” but argues that Schwendimann’s
updating the “Sqlite3 database” is not the same as “importing” of contacts as
claimed by Appellants’ claims 1, 8, and 15. Reply Br. 3 (citing
Schwendimann 139). According to Appellant, “[t]he ‘result’ are ‘suggested
or smart contact information’ and hence merely update existing contact
information in the Sqlite3 database.” Id. “Indeed, in Schwendimann there is
no reference to any ‘suggestion/recommendation database.’” Id. at 4.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Instead, we find
the Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant’s arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2—12. As such, we adopt
the Examiner’s findings and explanations. Id. For additional emphasis, we
5
Appeal 2017-002185
Application 13/757,926
note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)
consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The term “importing” is not defined by
Appellant’s Specification. Rather, that term is broadly described in
Appellant’s Specification in the context of “contacts 120 [shown in Figure 1]
with the highest rating 160 [i.e., contacts 120 determined to interact with the
end user with sufficient frequency]” as being “imported [i.e., stored or
updated] in a data store 170 of contacts.” Spec. 118.
For example, Appellant’s Figure 1 shows a process for autonomic
selective importation of contacts in a contact management system, as
reproduced below:
I Highest
<**>1 Rated Contacts
180
120'
120 ('
120 /
1 30
140
Phorie^A —
1 SO
E-Mail :
170
110
> ■
sv
. 1
Appellant’s Figure 1 shows a process for autonomic selective importation of
contacts in a contact management system.
As described by Appellant’s Specification,
6
Appeal 2017-002185
Application 13/757,926
“communications 130, 140, 150 between an end user 110 and
other contacts 120 can be monitored in order to determine a
frequency of communicative interaction between the end user
110 and each of the contacts 120 .. .
A frequency of interaction between the end user 110 and
different ones of the contacts 120 can be computed responsive
to each detected communication between the end user 110 and
the different ones of the contacts 120. Individual ones of the
contacts 120 determined to interact with the end user with
sufficient frequency can be assigned a highest rating 160.
Thereafter, contacts 120 with the highest rating 160 can be
imported into a data store 170 of contacts for a corresponding
contact management system, such as that disposed within a
CRM application.”
Spec. 1117-18.
Based on Appellant’s Specification, the Examiner has broadly but
reasonably interpreted the term “importing” as encompassing “writing] new
results [i.e., contacts that “pass” the rule]” to the Suggestions
ContentProvider [database 150, shown in Figure 1” or “update[ing] cached
contacts and data suggestions results in a Suggestions ContentProvider
[database] 150.” Ans. 3, 6, 11 (citing Schwendimann 121, Figures 1 and 3);
see also Schwendimann 127. As recognized by the Examiner,
“Figures 1 and 2 also shows that the suggested data moves from
the collection database 210/212 (also the collected data 110) to
the recommendation database 240 (also the suggestion database
150). This movement of data from one database to another is
importing the data into the second suggestion/recommendation
database.”
Ans. 3. We find the Examiner’s interpretation reasonable and consistent
with Appellant’s Specification. As such, we agree with the Examiner that
7
Appeal 2017-002185
Application 13/757,926
Schwendimann discloses the disputed limitation of Appellant’s claims 1, 8,
and 15. Final Act. 2-4.
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and
15, and their respective dependent claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—21, which
Appellant does not argue separately. App. Br. 9.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has not demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
§ 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103(a).
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
8