Ex Parte Roy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2014

12030994 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHAIBAL ROY
____________________

Appeal 2012-003585
Application 12/030,994
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR JAMES P. CALVE, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-20. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-003585
Application 12/030,994

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An electronic mail (email) communications system
for operating over a communications network, the email
communications system comprising:
an email server having a server inbox for receiving and
storing email via the communications network and having a server
email storage folder;
at least one wireless email communications device
having a device inbox; and
an email proxy server for communicating with said email
server and said at least one wireless email communications device via
the communications network for
forwarding email from the server inbox to the
device inbox,
detecting a deletion of a given email from the
server inbox,
determining if the detected deletion of the given
email from the server inbox was accompanied by
copying of the given email to the server email storage
folder, and
if the deletion of the given email from the server
inbox is not accompanied by copying of the given email
to the server email storage folder, then causing said
wireless email communications device to also delete the
given email from the device inbox based thereon.

REJECTION
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Butcher (US 2006/0155810 A1; pub. July 13, 2006).
ANALYSIS
The claimed subject matter relates to an email system in which the
deletion of a given email from a server inbox 23 is detected and then the
given email is deleted from the inbox of a wireless email communications
Appeal 2012-003585
Application 12/030,994

3
device. In other words, the system synchronizes emails in the inbox of the
wireless email communications device with email activity in a server inbox.
See Spec. 6-9, para. [0018]-[0024]; fig. 1. When an email is copied to the
server email storage folder before deletion from the server inbox, the system
causes the wireless email communications device to copy the given email
from the device inbox to the device email storage folder and delete the given
email from the device inbox. Spec. 9, para. [0025]. The email server may
be a corporate email server or ISP email server. Spec. 6, para. [0018].
The Examiner found that Butcher discloses an email communication
system including detecting a deletion of a given email from the server inbox,
as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 14. Ans. 5 (citing para. [0072]-[0076]).
The Examiner also found that Butcher discloses that the mobile terminal
device detects that a user has filed an email on the device and deletes it from
the folder of the mobile terminal device (para. [0073]) and then forwards this
command to a relay server ([para. [0073]), which forwards the command to
an enterprise server (para. [0074]) that receives the command and performs
the relevant move operation on the email server (para. [0075]) and mirrors
the operation to the user’s desktop (para. [0076]). Ans. 8.
Appellant argues that Butcher does not detect anything at the mobile
device much less the deletion of an email from the server inbox, as claimed.
App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues that Butcher instead discloses that
the mobile device sends an update or “delete notification” to the relay server
when the user deletes an email on the mobile device and the relay server 218
creates and sends a protocol email containing the delete notification to a
corporate email server 210 in response to the update from the mobile device.
App. Br. 8.
Appeal 2012-003585
Application 12/030,994

4
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Butcher detects deletion of a given email from a server inbox of a corporate
email server 210 and then deletes that given email from the device inbox of
the wireless email communications device, as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
Butcher instead discloses that the deletions of emails on a wireless email
communications device are replicated on a corporate email server (i.e. the
deletions detected in Butcher occur on a different device than required by
the claims). See Butcher, paras. [0072-0076]; see also Ans. 5, 8 (citing
paras. [0072-0076]).
As such, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-20.

REVERSED

tkl