Ex Parte RoyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 201412030994 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation