Ex Parte Leeder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2017

13206111 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 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.
13/206,111 08/09/2011 Michael Leeder GEN-183 3182
105956 7590
Fogarty, L.L.C
P.O. Box 703695
Dallas, TX 75370-3695
01/25/2017 EXAMINER
WOO, ANDREW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2017 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):
docket @ fogarty ip .com
jody.bishop@genband.com
uspto@fogartyip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL LEEDER, CARROLL LOUISE GRAY-
PRESTON, JAMES ANGUS MCEACHERN, and
RICHARD C. TAYLOR
Appeal 2015-007861
Application 13/206, 111
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1—53, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-007861
Application 13/206,111
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to managing associations between users in
multiple over-the-top service platforms. Title. Claims 1, 27, and 53 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A method for managing associations between users in
multiple over-the-top (OTT) service platforms, the method
comprising:
receiving a first message indicating an action associated
with a first user in a first OTT service platform;
generating, based on the first message, a second message
for performing a related action in a second OTT service
platform; and
communicating the second message to the second OTT
service platform.
References and Rejection
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Frank US 2005/0125541 A1 June 9,2005
Bostrom US 2011/0208814 A1 Aug. 25, 2011
Claims 1—53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frank and Bostrom. Final Action 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments. We are not persuaded the rejection is in error. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments as follows.
2
Appeal 2015-007861
Application 13/206,111
A. Independent Claims
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because the proposed combination of Frank and Bostrom fails to teach each
claim element. Final Action 5. Regarding Frank, Appellants contend
“Frank does not teach or suggest OTT [i.e., over-the-top] services or OTT
service platforms. Rather, Frank discloses communication services that are
integrated into the same system or network.” Appeal Brief 6; see also Reply
Brief 2—3. Appellants contend Bostrom does not teach communicating the
second message to the second OTT service platform, as claimed, because
“[wjhile the process taught by Bostrom may achieve an end of adding a new
association in the user’s social graph as maintained on social networking
platform 107, the request (i.e. message) is communicated to the same (first)
platform (i.e. platform 107) from and to which all communications are
directed.” Appeal Brief 9; see also Reply Brief 4—5.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions regarding the independent claims as our own, and
add the following for emphasis.
First, we disagree with Appellants’ characterization of Frank’s
teachings. We agree with the Examiner that Frank teaches the OTT service
platforms as claimed, because Frank teaches using “communication modes
(over-the-top platforms). . . like Instant Messaging, voice conversation
mode[s] like VOiP, or voice/video conversation modes” (Answer 3), and
“the applications providing that mode of communication are independent of
GUI, the icons show different IM providers (para. 51)” (Final Action 28).
See Frank 139. Frank discloses that examples of such communication
modes include “the AOF® IM service” and “Yahoo®,” and the Examiner
3
Appeal 2015-007861
Application 13/206,111
correctly finds such teachings are tantamount to the examples of OTT
service platforms provided in the Specification. See Final Action 28; see
also Frank 153; compare Specification 7:8—11 (“For example, an OTT
service platform may be a peer-to-peer voice over Internet protocol (VoIP)
provider (e.g., Skype or Google Talk), an instant messaging service (e.g.,
America online instant messenger, Yahoo messenger, Google’s Gchat), [or]
an email service”).
Second, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us the Examiner’s
combination was in error. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(“[o]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references”). Here, the Examiner correctly finds an artisan would modify
Frank’s teaching of managing messages among users of various OTT service
platforms (Final Action 3^4; Answer 3), with Bostrom’s teaching of
managing communications (such as invitations, events, and adding contacts)
across different social networks based on shared OTT service platform user
history (Final Action 4; Answer 4). We agree. See Frank || 39, 46
(describing rules, including upon “receipt of a voice call and user 12 is out
of the office. In defining a rule for this example, user 12 can specify actions
such as send the voice call to voice mail, disconnect the voice call, or
forward the voice call to some other user.”);1 Bostrom || 20-21
(“recommendations on adding people to one or more social networking
1 Separately, we note Frank also teaches or suggests a user may receive
communications in one OTT service platform and send communications
using another OTT service platform, which suggests communicating a
second message to a second OTT platform. See Frank Figures 3, 3A; || 25—
26, 44-45 (describing including voice messages or synchronous phone
connections in an e-mail).
4
Appeal 2015-007861
Application 13/206,111
services may be determined based on a relevant social graph”); || 43—45.
Based on the record before us, we do not find the limitations of claim 1
“represent[] an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 as obvious over Frank and Bostrom. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 27 and
53, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 5, 7, 9.
B. Dependent Claims
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 3,
because:
the Examiner’s answer discusses communications between
users or an action taken by a user, rather than a second message
that is generated, based on a first message, for performing a
related action in a second OTT service platform, by the claimed
system or method. In claims 3 and 29 this action is to,
“disassociate the first user with the second user in the second
OTT service platform.”
Reply Brief 7. The Examiner finds Frank teaches a user “can specify an
action(s) (i.e., send to voice mail, disconnect (destruction of an association)
the voice call, or forward the call) to another user that is connected or has
established a connection” and the user interface can also indicate the status
of the users. Answer 5 (citing Frank || 46, 53). We are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Frank discloses using a “rules assistant, user 12 can specify
actions computer 14 should take when certain events such as an incoming
request to converse, from user 22 to user 12, arrives at computer 14.” Frank
146. These rules can be based on, inter alia, the indicated status of a given
5
Appeal 2015-007861
Application 13/206,111
user (such as “out of the office”) and can manage communications (such as
“disconnect[ing] the voice call”). Id. Appellants have not persuaded us
Frank’s teaching of communications based on rules and indications of user
status does not suggest the messaging required by claim 3. Thus, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 3, and claim 29 which recites
similar limitations. See Appeal Brief 11.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in
finding the cited references teach the limitation “generating a third message
comprising a request to associate the first user with the third user in the third
OTT service platform,” because the references teach “normal social
networking communications between users,” and such “normal messaging
and request operation by users do not meet [the claimed] elements.” Reply
Brief 9. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We note both Frank and
Bostrom teach multiple messages to multiple OTT service platforms. See
Frank Figures 1, 3A, | 8 (describing “two or more communication modes”);
Bostrom Figures 1, 3, Tflf 19—21 (describing “social networking applications
103a-103n”). Further, other than referring to the messaging as “normal,”
Appellants present no evidence or substantive arguments to persuade us
claim 8 precludes the prior art messaging as found by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim
8, and dependent claim 34 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 13.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 12
and 38, because “nothing in the teachings of the social graph of Bostrom
would seem to teach or suggest... the metadata indicating such [claimed]
and/or further interrelationships.” Reply Brief 11. We are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Appellants’ Specification characterizes metadata as
6
Appeal 2015-007861
Application 13/206,111
“describing the interrelationship between one or more users of one or more
OTT service platforms.” Specification 28:20—22. Bostrom similarly teaches
a social graph, which “is a data structure or a group of data structures (e.g.,
list, table, etc.) that stores connection and relationship information between
users.” Bostrom 119; Answer 7. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
limitations of claims 12 and 38 reasonably encompasses the social graph as
taught by Bostrom.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 2,
7, 10, 28, 33, and 36. See Appeal Brief 10, 12, and 13—14. We are not
persuaded the Examiner erred, however, because Appellants’ arguments
consist of reiterating that “Frank fails to teach or suggest communicating a
second message to a second OTT service platform” as recited by
independent claim 1. Appeal Brief 10, 12, 14. As discussed above, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Frank and
Bostrom teaches the claimed “communicating a second message to a second
OTT service platform.” Thus, Appellants’ arguments for these dependent
claims—that the cited references do not teach the independent claim
limitations—do not persuade us of Examiner error in relying on the cited
combination of references. See Appeal Brief 10, 12, and 13—14; see also
Final Action 5, 7, 8, 16, and 17—20. In the Reply Brief, Appellants present
new arguments regarding the limitations of dependent claims 2, 7, 10, 28,
33, and 36. Reply Brief 5—11. We do not consider these arguments, because
they were not presented in the opening brief. See Optivus Technology, Inc.
v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument
raised for the first time in the Reply Brief that could have been raised in the
opening brief is waived); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
7
Appeal 2015-007861
Application 13/206,111
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Frank and Bostrom teach the limitations of dependent claims 2, 7, 10, 28,
33, and 36.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 27—
29, 33, 34, 36, 38, and 53. Appellants advance no further argument on
dependent claims 4—6, 9, 11, 13—26, 30-32, 35, 37, and 39-52. See Appeal
Brief 5, 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims for the same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—53 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8