Ex Parte T. et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

13652641 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/652,641 10/16/2012 Satyanarayana T.
22917 7590 11/23/2016
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
500 W. Monroe
43rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60661
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.
CM15389 3996
EXAMINER
BAYARD, DJENANE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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):
USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SATYANARA YANA T., ANEES ABDULKADER ANAKKOT,
and TYRONE D. BEKIARES
Appeal2016-001558
Application 13/652,641
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-001558
Application 13/652,641
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 11 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
11. A method for determining a synchronization with
respect to multiple presence service subscriptions, the method
compnsmg:
maintaining multiple subscriptions associated with a
Watcher;
receiving a subscription information consolidated status
update (SICSU) request from a user terminal associated with
the Watcher, wherein the SICSU request requests a provision of
a consolidated status update of multiple subscriptions
associated with the Watcher; and
in response to receiving the SICSU request, conveying a
SICSU notification comprising a first SICSU values, wherein
each SIC SU value of the SIC SU values indicate a status of
multiple subscriptions associated with the Watcher.
Examiner's Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sekaran et al. (US 7,536,481 B2; May 19, 2009). 1
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 22. Except for our ultimate
decision, this claim is not discussed further herein.
2
Appeal 2016-001558
Application 13/652,641
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4 and 12-15 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) the combination of Sekaran and Laflamme et al.
(US 2008/0214170 Al; Sept. 4, 2008). 2
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 5-10 and 16-21 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) the combination of Sekaran,
Laflamme, and Ben-Ezra et al. (US 7,814,051 B2; Oct. 12, 2010). 3
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11
because:
[Sekaran] fails to teach or otherwise suggest a single message
is sent/received to send/receive status information of multiple
subscriptions.
App Br. 6.
Analysis of Sekaran reveals that this reference fails to
teach or otherwise suggest that a single message is
sent/received to send/receive status information of multiple
subscriptions. This is illustrated in columns 7 and 8 of Sekaran,
where multiple messages need to be sent to receive presence
information for multiple devices.
App Br. 7.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 1--4 and 12-15. Rather,
Appellants merely repeat (App. Br. 8) for these claims the arguments
directed to claim 11. Therefore, the rejections of these claims tum on our
decision as to the underlying § 102 rejection of claim 11, and are not further
addressed herein.
3 No arguments are presented for claims 5-10 and 16-21. Therefore, the
rejections of these claims tum on our decision as to the underlying § 102
rejection, and are not further addressed herein.
3
Appeal 2016-001558
Application 13/652,641
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 11 as being anticipated
because Sekaran fails to disclose the argued limitations?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we agree with Appellants that
Sekaran fails to teach or suggest a consolidated status update of multiple
subscriptions wherein each SI CSU value of the SI CSU values indicate a
status of multiple subscriptions. Sekaran, instead, discloses the prior art
method of a separate status update for each subscription. See Sekaran Fig. 7.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 11 and 22 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-10 and 12-21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1-22 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22 are reversed.
REVERSED
4