Ex Parte Whitten et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 12, 2016

13288688 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/288,688 11/03/2011 Robert Clark Whitten 124538 7590 04/14/2016 Cox Communications, Inc, c/o Next IP Law Group LLP Two Ravinia Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30346 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. 33020-RAl/10218-US 1 8472 EXAMINER HTUN,SANA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/14/2016 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): bgunter@nextiplaw.com bbalser@nextiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT CLARK WHITTEN, BRANDON HALL GOODE, and PHILIP BRENT FOREMAN Appeal2014-008671 Application 13/288,688 Technology Center 2643 Before JASON V. MORGAN, DAVID J. CUTITTA, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITT A, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-008671 Application 13/288,688 Invention Appellants' application relates to a system, method and medium providing intelligent find me follow me services. (Spec. i-fi-1 2, 3). In the system a presence server is configured to track usage for a user, an application server is configured to determine an endpoint contact order for a list of endpoints based on an algorithm applied to the tracked usage, and a network is configured to send a communication to an endpoint on the list of endpoints in the endpoint contact order. (Spec. i-f l ). Exemplary Claims Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. A method comprising: tracking usage for a user; determining an endpoint contact order from a list of endpoints based on an algorithm applied to the tracked usage; and sending a communication intended for the user to an endpoint on the list of endpoints in the endpoint contact order. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 6-11, and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over Weeks et al. (US 2007 /0077920Al; published Apr. 5, 2007) in view of Reding et al. (US 2004/0213212Al; published Oct. 28, 2004). (Final Act. 4--8). 2 Appeal2014-008671 Application 13/288,688 The Examiner rejects claims 5, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weeks, Reding, and Lew (US 2006/0029201 Al; published Feb. 9, 2006). (Final Act. 8-10). The Examiner rejects claims 6, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weeks, Reding, and Hansen (US 2009/0310768 Al; Dec. 17, 2009). (Final Act. 10-11). Issue Did the Examiner err in finding Weeks suggests "determining an endpoint contact order from a list of endpoints based on an algorithm applied to the tracked usage," as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS With respect to claim 1, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation primarily for emphasis. The Examiner relies on Weeks' FIGS. 5-8 and 9-11 and the corresponding text to suggest "determining an endpoint contact order from a list of endpoints based on an algorithm applied to the tracked usage," as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 4--5; Answer 2). More specifically, the Examiner relies upon Weeks' automatic detection of usage patterns 500 as illustrated at FIG. 5 and Weeks' Find Me function 718 as illustrated at FIG. 7. (Final Act. 4--5; Answer 2). 3 Appeal2014-008671 Application 13/288,688 In response, Appellants contend that "nowhere in figures 7 -13 does the algorithm order the contacts based on tracked usage" and "[ e ]ven if ... tracked usage is disclosed in paragraph 40 of Weeks, the usage that is tracked is the communications services usage, and the communications services settings are applied to the user based on his usage of those services." (App. Br. 5). Appellants contend that, at best, the cited "references simply disclose a list maintained by the user." (Reply Br. 2). We disagree with Appellants. Weeks discusses "automatically detect[ing] [a user's] pattern in usage of services." (FIG. 5, item 500 and i-f 40). Weeks then clarifies that "[a] designation of user preferences for communications service features ... may be proposed based on the detected pattern (block 510)." (i-f 40). Separately at FIG. 7, item 718, Weeks discusses Find Me function 718 to "automatically set calls to forward or sequentially ring [the user] at multiple locations'' (emphasis added). Then, "[a]t field 1064, a number or numbers may be provided for call forwarding associated with the Find Me function." (FIG. 10, item 1064 and i-f 51, emphasis added). Thus, as set forth supra, the Find Me function 718 of Weeks allows the user to input several different telephone numbers where the user may be reached, thereby suggesting an "endpoint contact order," as claimed. This Find Me function is "a communications service feature" as discussed in Weeks in conjunction with FIG. 5; the user's use of multiple telephone numbers also represents "communications services." Further, Weeks suggests proposing user preferences for communications service features based on a detected pattern of the user's usage of the communication service. 4 Appeal2014-008671 Application 13/288,688 Therefore, because Weeks' Find Me function 718 allows a user to be reached at a plurality of different telephone numbers and because a user would certainly prefer to be reached at the number where the user is currently located (communications service feature), we agree with the Examiner that Weeks suggests proposing a particular telephone number based on a detected pattern of the user's usage of the telephone (communication service). (Ans. 4). Weeks, in other words, reasonably suggests determining a user's preference, including an order of telephone numbers where the user may be reached (communications service feature), based on the automatic detecting of the user's usage of the telephones (communication services). (Weeks FIG. 5, item 500 and FIG. 7, item 718). As acknowledged by Appellants, communications services settings in Weeks for a plurality of communication services "are applied to the user based on his usage of those services." (App. Br. 5). As discussed above, Weeks; communication services settings include an order of devices at which to contact the user as discussed in the Find Me function 718 of FIG. 7 and corresponding text. Thus, by suggesting service usage as the basis for determining communication services settings, Weeks teaches or suggests determining an endpoint contact order (i.e., Weeks' order of devices) from a list of endpoints based on an algorithm applied to the tracked usage (i.e., based on service usage). Appellants further contend that "[t]he only way that the Examiner could have arrived at its conclusion was through hindsight analysis .... " (Reply Br. 4). However, Appellants do not support this conclusory contention with persuasive arguments or evidence. 5 Appeal2014-008671 Application 13/288,688 Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Weeks suggests "determining an endpoint contact order from a list of endpoints based on an algorithm applied to the tracked usage," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 (a) of independent claim 1. Appellants make similar arguments for independent claims 8 and 15. (App. Br. 6-11). Therefore, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 8 and 15 for reasons similar to those set forth supra for independent claim 1. For the reasons discussed above, we also affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, which Appellants do not argue separately. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6