Ex Parte PARSONS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 2019

13919317 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/919,317 06/17/2013 93379 7590 Setter Roche LLP 14694 Orchard Parkway Building A, Suite 200 Westminster, CO 80023 02/04/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Shane PARSONS 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 648.0257 5506 EXAMINER HO,RUAYL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/04/2019 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): sarah@setterroche.com pair_avaya@firsttofile.com uspto@setterroche.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHANE PARSONS and SCOTT SEWELL 1 Appeal2018-004891 Application 13/919,317 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Invention The Specification discloses displaying a list of participants in a conference in a graphical user interface where "at least one participant associated with [a] subset of participant data that meets [a] predefined 1 Appellant is the applicant and real party in interest, Avaya Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-004891 Application 13/919,317 criterion is displayed in the graphical user interface at a place other than the place where the list of participants in the conference is displayed in the graphical user interface." Abstract. Representative Claim (key limitations emphasized) 1. A computing device for providing a graphical user interface for a conference, the computing device comprising: a memory, the memory configured to store at least one predefined criterion; a receiver, the receiver configured to receive participant data, the participant data including: a list of participants in the conference; and at least one subset of participant data associated with each participant in the list of participants; a processor, the processor configured to determine if at least one participant in the list of participants is associated with the at least one subset of participant data that meets the at least one predefined criterion; a display, the display configured to: display, in a first section of the graphical user interface, the list of participants; and display, in a second section of the graphical user interface different from the first section, the at least one participant determined to be associated with the at least one subset of participant data that meets the at least one predefined criterion, wherein: the list of participants is displayed in the first section at the same time as the at least one participant determined to be associated with the at least one subset of participant data that meets the at least one predefined criterion is displayed in the second section. 2 Appeal2018-004891 Application 13/919,317 Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 9, 14--18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2012/ 0182384 Al; published July 19, 2012) ("Anderson") and Fish (US 2007/ 0288852 Al; published Dec. 13, 2007). Final Act. 4--9. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, Fish, and Lord et al. (US 2013/0144603 A 1; published June 6, 2013) ("Lord"). Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, Fish, and Yerli (US 2013/0159883 Al; published June 20, 2013). Final Act. 10-12. The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, Fish, Yerli, and Lord. Final Act. 12. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Anderson's disclosure of status icons in a participant list and viewable subgroups of an attendee list to teach or suggest receipt of a list of participants in a conference and a processor configured to determine if at least one participant in the list of participants is associated with the at least one subset of participant data that meets the at least one predefined criterion. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Anderson ,r,r 85, 153, 188). The Examiner relies on Fish's disclosure of displaying a separate participant lists window and notification settings window to teach or suggest modifying Anderson to include displaying, in a first section of a graphical user interface, the list of participants and displaying, in a second section of the graphical user interface different from the first section, the at least one participant determined to be associated with the at least one subset 3 Appeal2018-004891 Application 13/919,317 of participant data that meets the at least one predefined criterion. Ans. 11- 12 (citing Fish ,r,r 15, 83, 86, Fig. 5); see also Final Act. 5---6. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Anderson in this manner "to enhance its concurrent displaying functions." Final Act. 6 ( emphasis omitted). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the participant lists window (i.e., window 510) of Fish "simply displays identifiers of various participant lists with a name descriptive of the participant therein ( e.g., immediate family, college friends, etc.)." Appeal Br. 7 (citing Fish ,r 83). Appellant argues "Fish does not disclose that window 510 would be used to display a list of the participants associated with any of the list identifiers." Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because Fish discloses that the "participant lists 514a-514h may be expanded ... to display the contents of participant lists 514a-514h." Fish ,r 85. That is, "expanding one of the participant lists 514a-514h makes visible the communications identities included in the expanded list." J d. Thus, contrary to Appellant's arguments (Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2), Fish discloses displaying a list of the participants (i.e., the communications identities) associated with the list identifiers (i.e., in an expanded participant lists). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Anderson and Fish teaches or suggests "display[ing], in a first section of the graphical user interface, the list of participants," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 5. Appellant further argues that Fish's "window 520 does not disclose the list identifiers, or individual participants, along with the notification settings." Appeal Br. 7 ( citing Fish ,r 86); see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant's 4 Appeal2018-004891 Application 13/919,317 argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner also relies on Anderson's teachings related to the display of information about a participant in a separate section. See Ans. 5 ( citing Anderson ,r 188). Specifically, Anderson discloses "status icons in the participant list 510 display one of the several possible statuses for each attendee, such as: ... speaking." Anderson ,r 188. Anderson illustrates these status icons next to named participants in participants panel 510 with the current speaker's name repeated in another panel as speaker name 503. See Anderson Figs. 5-9. As the Examiner notes, Fish makes clear that panels like these represent first and second sections of a graphical user interface. Final Act. 6. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Anderson and Fish teaches or suggests "display[ing], in a second section of the graphical user interface different from the first section, the at least one participant determined to be associated with the at least one subset of participant data that meets the at least one predefined criterion," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 5---6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejections of claims 2 and 4-- 20, which Appellant does not argue separately with specificity. See Appeal Br. 7-9. Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 because Anderson's disclosure that a "current speaker can select the next speaker ... is irrelevant to anything indicated by participant data." Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant's conclusory assertion does not persuasively distinguish the claimed participant data from information known about participants in Anderson (i.e., speaker status). Therefore, we do not find 5 Appeal2018-004891 Application 13/919,317 error in the Examiner's finding that Anderson teaches or suggests "wherein the at least one predefined criterion is met if the at least one subset of participant data associated with a respective participant indicates the respective participant is a previous active speaker," as recited in claim 3. See Final Act. 6-7 ( citing Anderson ,r 206). Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejection of claim 3. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 6