Ex Parte ItaniDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 201713757926 (P.T.A.B. May. 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. 13/757,926 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation