Ex Parte Wisniewski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2013

10724845 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/724,845 12/01/2003 Robert W. Wisniewski YOR920030535US1 2172 29683 7590 03/27/2013 HARRINGTON & SMITH 4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202 SHELTON, CT 06484-6212 EXAMINER WALSH, JOHN B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ROBERT W. WISNIEWSKI and MARY YVONNE LANZEROTTI ________________ Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-36. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 2 Claims 1-14 and 16-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Reed (US 2002/0095454 A1; published July 18, 2002). Ans. 4-9.1 Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Reed and Wolton (US 2004/0030741 A1; published Feb. 12, 2004; filed Apr. 1, 2002). Ans. 10. We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates a database agent adapted to determine if a communication has a task tag, to transfer predetermined communication tag information of the task tag to a database, and to automatically send a communication based upon information stored in the predetermined communication tag information. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A communication system comprising: a storage device comprising a database configured to store communication tag information of a task tag; and a database agent configured to determine if a communication has the task tag, wherein the database agent is configured to transfer predetermined communication tag information of the task tag of the communication to the database, and wherein the database agent is configured to automatically send a communication based upon information stored in the predetermined communication tag information. 1 Reed also qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 3 ANALYSIS THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION Claim 1 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 1, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 4. Appellants argue Reed does not disclose a database agent configured to determine if a communication has a task tag; a database agent configured to transfer predetermined communication tag information of the task tag of the communication to the database; or a database agent configured to automatically send a communication based upon information stored in the predetermined communication tag information. App. Br. 8-10; see also Reply Br. 1-6. In response, the Examiner explains Reed discloses the disputed limitations, and maps the recited task tag to Reed’s program/agent receiving and processing transferred information. The Examiner further explains that Reed’s program will store updated information in the database when received, notify a user of updated information, and generate responses. Ans. 11-12 (citing Reed, ¶¶32-33, 90). We agree with the Examiner. Reed (¶32) states The consumer program receives information from the provider or polls a location identified by the transferred information to determine when information has been updated by the provider. The consumer program then retrieves the information from the proper source and compares it to the existing information to determine what has been updated. The consumer program maintains a database of information from different providers. When updated information is received, the consumer program executes instructions associated with the information to store the updated information, notify a user of updated information, Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 4 and generate responses for the consumer. The consumer program also can transfer the information to second consumer computer. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Reed’s consumer program receiving information from the provider to determine when information has been updated by the provider describes a database agent configured to determine if a communication has the task tag, as recited by claim 1. We also agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program executing instructions associated with the information to store the updated information describes the database agent configured to transfer predetermined communication tag information of the task tag of the communication to the database, as recited by claim 1. We further agree with the Examiner that Reed’s notifying a user of updated information and generating responses for the consumer describes the database agent configured to automatically send a communication based upon information stored in the predetermined communication tag information, as recited by claim 1. Regarding Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 1-6) that the Examiner’s interpretation of “task tag” is not reasonable, we see no error in the Examiner’s mapping Reed’s program/agent receiving and processing transferred information to the recited task tag. Appellants’ Specification describes task tag icon 52 (Fig. 3) and task tag entry window 54 (Fig. 4). See Spec., ¶¶27-31. Although this discussion informs our construction of “task tag,” it is not limiting. Notably, Appellants do not define the term “task tag” in the Specification, but rather describe it in connection with preferred embodiments. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 5 The term “tag” is defined, in pertinent subsense, as “5 c : something used for identification or location.”2 Therefore, a broad, but reasonable construction of “task tag” includes something used for identification of a task. With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Reed for describing the “task tag” as recited by claim 1. Reed’s consumer program receives information from the provider to determine when information has been updated by the provider (the received information is used for identification of the task of updating, and thus, includes a task tag). See Reed, ¶32. Weighing Appellants’ arguments against the Examiner’s findings, we conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection based on Reed of claim 1. Claim 2 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 2, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 4. Appellants argue the Examiner has not established that Reed discloses a database agent configured to determine if the email has a task tag. App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 6-7. In response, the Examiner explains Reed discloses the information, including change information, can be transmitted via email. Ans. 12 (citing Reed, ¶90); see also Reed, ¶87 (describing email as an example of a pushing method to transfer information). We agree with the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s transmitting information via email describes the communication comprises an email and the database 2 MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1200 (10th ed. 1997). Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 6 agent configured to determine if the email has a task tag, as recited by claim 2. We conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection based on Reed of claim 2. Claim 3 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 3, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 4. Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose a task tag comprising a task topic and a task reminder. App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 7-8. In response, the Examiner explains that limitations from the Specification are not read into the claim, and that Reed discloses attributes of the communications object for transmission that meet the labels of a “task topic” and a “task reminder.” Ans. 13 (citing Reed, ¶180). We agree with the Examiner. During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We additionally note that, without reciting further functionality, “task topic” and “task reminder” are labels that merely describe the content of data, and they therefore constitute non-functional descriptive material as they do not further limit the claimed invention functionally. Such non- Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 7 functional descriptive material does not patentably distinguish over the prior art that otherwise renders the claims unpatentable.3 We conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection based on Reed of claim 3. Claim 4 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 4, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 4. Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose transferring the task topic to the database with the task reminder. App. Br. 12. In response, the Examiner explains that limitations from the Specification are not read into the claim, and that Reed discloses the claim limitations. Ans. 13-14 (citing Reed, ¶180). We agree with the Examiner. We again note that, without reciting further functionality, “task topic” is a label that constitutes non-functional descriptive material. We conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection based on Reed of claim 4. Claim 5 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 5, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose storing the task reminder in the database corresponding to a task topic already stored in the database. App. Br. 12. 3 See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-89 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to non-functional descriptive material). Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 8 In response, the Examiner explains that Reed stores updated information into the database. Ans. 14 (citing Reed, ¶32). We note that, in order to store updated information, corresponding information is already stored in the database. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Reed teaches the claim limitations. We again note that, without reciting further functionality, “task topic” and “task reminder” are labels that constitute non-functional descriptive material. We conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection based on Reed of claim 5. Claim 6 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 6, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose a database agent configured to generate a report based upon communication tag information stored in the database, as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 13. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed generates reports and notifications based upon objects/tag information stored in a database. Ans. 14 (citing Reed, ¶¶137, 164, 173). We agree with the Examiner. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Claim 7 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 7, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose the database agent is configured to automatically generate the report based upon a predetermined event. App. Br. 14. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 9 In response, the Examiner explains that Reed generates reports and notifications when new objects arrive. Ans. 15 (citing Reed, ¶¶137, 164, 173). We agree with the Examiner. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Claim 8 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 8, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose the database agent is configured to generate the report based upon a request submitted by a user. App. Br. 14-15. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed’s receiving information from the provider is based upon a request submitted by a user, and that together with the generated report/notification meets the recited claim limitations. Ans. 15-16 (citing Reed, ¶¶32, 33). We agree with the Examiner. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Claim 9 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 9, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose communication tag information comprising an importance factor, wherein the database agent is configured to prioritize at least a portion of the communication tag information based upon the importance of factors of the communication tag information stored in the database. App. Br. 15. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed describes component objects having current version values for update control. Ans. 16 (citing Reed, ¶309). We agree with the Examiner. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 10 Reed’s current version values describe importance factors. Further, Reed’s updating of communication objects based on the current version values describes the database agent prioritizing communication tag information based upon the importance of factors as recited in claim 9. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Claim 10 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 10, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5 (citing Reed, ¶¶31-35, 90-94). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose a database agent configured to automatically obtain information relating to the communication tag information from a remote computer. App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 8-9. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶32) consumer program receiving information from the provider to determine when information has been updated by the provider, and retrieving the information from the proper source describes the database agent configured to automatically obtain information relating to the communication tag information from a remote computer. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. Claim 11 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 11, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6. Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose a database agent configured to collate at least a portion of a communication tag information stored in a database. App. Br. 16-17. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 11 In response, the Examiner explains that Reed’s program/agent compares the information to the existing information to determine what has been updated. Ans. 18 (citing Reed, ¶32). We agree with the Examiner. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11. Claim 12 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 12, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6 (citing Reed, ¶439). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose communication tag information comprising a deliverable/project tag information, wherein the database agent is configured to transfer deliverable/project tag information of the task tag of the communication to the database. App. Br. 18. In response, the Examiner explains that limitations from the Specification are not read into the claim, and that Reed discloses project names when describing name resolution services. Ans. 18 (citing Reed, ¶439). We agree with the Examiner. We note that, without reciting further functionality, “deliverable/project” is a label that constitutes non-functional descriptive material. We conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection based on Reed of claim 12. Claim 13 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 13, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6, 19 (citing Reed, ¶¶31-35, 90- 94). Appellants argue that Reed does not track progress of a task as recited in claim 13. App. Br. 18-19. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 12 We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program receiving information (a tagged communication) from the provider to determine when information has been updated by the provider describes a method for automatically tracking progress of a task and tagging a communication, as recited by claim 13. Notably, the received information is used for identification of the task of updating, and thus, is a tagged communication. See Reed, ¶32. We also agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program executing instructions associated with the information to store the updated information describes acting on the tagged communication automatically by a database agent, as recited by claim 13. See Reed, ¶32. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13. Claim 14 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 14, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6 (citing Reed, ¶90). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose that the tagged communication includes an email as recited in claim 14. App. Br. 19. In response, the Examiner explains Reed discloses the information, including change information, can be transmitted via email. Ans. 19 (citing Reed, ¶90); see also Reed, ¶87 (describing email as an example of a pushing method to transfer information). We agree with the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s transmitting information via email describes the communication includes an email communication, as recited by claim 14. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 13 Claim 16 We do not agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 16, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6 (citing Reed, ¶¶90, 283, 536). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose that the tagged communication includes a telephone message, as recited in claim 16. App. Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 9. In response, the Examiner explains Reed discloses a voice mail message. Ans. 20 (citing Reed, ¶¶90, 283). We are persuaded that Reed’s voice mail message does not describe the communication includes a telephone message, as recited in claim 16. To the extent that Reed mentions a voice mail message, the Examiner has not explained how Reed describes that the tagged communication includes the voice mail message. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. Claim 17 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 17, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6. Appellants argue Reed does not describe storing the task in the database. App. Br. 21. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed’s program will store updated information in the database. Ans. 20-21 (citing Reed, ¶32). We agree with the Examiner. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 14 Claim 18 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 18, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7. Appellants argue that Reed does not describe updating information about the task in the database. App. Br. 21. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed’s program will store updated information in the database. Ans. 21 (citing Reed, ¶32). We agree with the Examiner. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. Claim 19 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 19, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7. Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose generating a report, as recited in claim 19. App. Br. 21-22. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed generates reports and notifications based upon objects/tag information stored in a database. Ans. 21-22 (citing Reed, ¶¶137, 164, 173, 408-12). We agree with the Examiner. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. Claim 20 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 20, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7. Appellants argue Reed does not suggest a group consisting of individuals, collaborators, team leaders and managers, as recited in claim 20. App. Br. 22. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses the claim limitations. Ans. 22 (citing Reed, ¶5). Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 15 We note that claim 20 recites where the users are selected from a group consisting of individuals, collaborators, team leaders and managers. This claim language does not limit the claim to a particular structure. Nor does this claim language limit the recited actions or steps of the method. Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner that Reed describes the recited claim limitations, and that Reed’s users describe the recited users. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20. Claim 21 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 21, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7. Appellants argue Reed does not disclose the users include other computer programs, and the other computer programs produce data, as recited in claim 21. App. Br. 22-23. We note claim 21 describes wherein the users include other computer programs, and wherein the other computer programs produce data including computer usage at a present or remote site, manufacturing yield, or customer purchasing patterns. This claim language does not limit the claim to a particular structure. Nor does this claim language limit the recited actions or steps of the method. Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner that Reed describes the recited claim limitations. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶32) consumer and provider programs describe the users include other computer programs, and wherein the other computer programs produce data, as recited in claim 21. We additionally note that, without reciting further functionality, “computer usage,” “manufacturing yield,” or “customer purchasing patterns” are labels that constitute non-functional descriptive material. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 16 We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21. Claim 22 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 22, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7. Appellants argue Reed does not suggest a group consisting of a combination of individuals, collaborators, team leaders, managers, and other computer programs, as recited in claim 22. App. Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 9-10. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses the claim limitations. Ans. 23 (citing Reed, ¶5). We note that claim 22 recites the users are selected from a group consisting of a combination of individuals, collaborators, team leaders, managers, and other computer programs. This claim language does not limit the claim to a particular structure. Nor does this claim language limit the recited actions or steps of the method. Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner that Reed describes the recited claim limitations. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶5) users and Reed’s (¶32) consumer and provider programs describe the recited group consisting of a combination of individuals, collaborators, team leaders, managers, and other computer programs. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22. Claim 23 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 23, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7 (citing Reed, ¶¶294, 318, 322). Appellants argue Reed does not suggest an importance of the task on the tag is set and negotiated by the users. App. Br. 23-26; see also Reply Br. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 17 10-11. Appellants do not dispute that Reed discloses preference values for each notification element being editable by the consumer. App. Br. 26. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses preference values that can be edited and that the user sets the preference value by making a choice from all possible preference values that could be set. Ans. 23-24. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s preference values (importance of the task on the tag) editable (set and negotiated by the users) by the consumer describe an importance of the task on the tag is set and negotiated by the users. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23. Claim 24 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 24, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7 (citing Reed, ¶398). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose a time duration of the task on the tag is set and negotiated by the users. App. Br. 27. In response, the Examiner explains that limitations from the Specification are not read into the claim, and various time durations disclosed by Reed meet the recited limitation of a time duration of the task on the tag is set and negotiated by the users. Ans. 24-25 (citing Reed, ¶¶128, 140, 174, 186, 198). We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶398) archiving rules allowing control of archiving of communication objects using time intervals describe a time duration of the task on the tag is set and negotiated by the users, as recited by claim 24. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 18 Claim 25 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 25, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7 (citing Reed, ¶520). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose merging communications from various tasks into one communication for a single task, as recited in claim 25. App. Br. 27-28. In response, the Examiner explains that multiple users perform editing and these various updates/edits are merged into a single new/updated object that can then be distributed to all users/recipients. Ans. 25 (citing Reed, ¶¶520, 522). We agree with the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶¶520, 522) updates/edits merged into a single new/updated object that can then be distributed to all users/recipients describes merging communications from various tasks into one communication for a single task, as recited in claim 25. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25. Claim 26 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 26, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7 (citing Reed, ¶519). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose separating communications from one task into several communications for separate tasks, as recited in claim 26. App. Br. 29-30. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses schedule objects for schedule coordination among a group. Ans. 25 (citing Reed, ¶¶535, 539). We agree with the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶¶535, 539) schedule objects for schedule coordination among a group describe separating Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 19 communications from one task into several communications for separate tasks, as recited in claim 26. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26. Claim 27 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 27, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Reed, ¶¶318, 398). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose monitoring a task deadline and being proactive in sending communication to humans and computers participating in the task. App. Br. 30-31. In response, the Examiner explains that schedule events are communicated to a group. Ans. 26 (citing Reed, ¶534). We agree with the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶534) communicating schedule events to a group describes monitoring a task deadline and being proactive in sending communication to humans and computers participating in the task. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27. Claim 28 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 28, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Reed, ¶398). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose tag properties on the communication include time to task completion, task progress, task topic, reminder interval, and collaborator type, as recited in claim 28. App. Br. 31. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed does disclose the various claimed features, and that the recited tag properties appear to be somewhat arbitrary. The Examiner notes Reed’s (¶200) editing the Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 20 preferences/properties for a communication. Ans. 26-27 (citing Reed, ¶¶109- 10, 113-14, 117-18, 198, 200, 394). We agree with the Examiner. We note that, without reciting further functionality, tag properties are labels that merely describe the content of data, and therefore constitute non- functional descriptive material. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 28. Claim 29 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 29, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Reed, ¶90). Appellants argue that Reed does not describe a tag property of a task progress which is selected from a group consisting of previous, new, in- progress, complete, other, as recited in claim 29. App. Br. 32. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses tagging the communication with a property tag of a version value. Ans. 27 (citing Reed, ¶119). We agree with the Examiner. We again note that, without reciting further functionality, tag properties are labels that merely describe the content of data, and therefore constitute non-functional descriptive material. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29. Claim 30 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 30, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8. Appellants argue that the Examiner has not identified where Reed discloses the claimed features. App. Br. 32. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed disclosing a tag property for name. Ans. 27 (citing Reed, ¶119). We agree with the Examiner. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 21 We again note that, without reciting further functionality, tag properties are labels that merely describe the content of data, and therefore constitute non-functional descriptive material. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30. Claim 31 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 31, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Reed, ¶357). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose permissions may be associated with the task restricting viewing of the task, as recited in claim 31. App. Br. 33. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses permissions to restrict viewing to users with appropriate credentials. Ans. 27-28 (citing Reed, ¶357). We agree with the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶357) customized views of a web site, IDs, and passwords describe permissions may be associated with the task restricting viewing of the task, as recited in claim 31. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31. Claim 32 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 32, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Reed, ¶¶90-93). Appellants argue Reed does not disclose adding deliverable/project information and task information to the communication, as recited in claim 32. App. Br. 34. In response, the Examiner explains that “deliverable/project” and “task” are merely labels for information. The Examiner further explains that Reed discloses including a provider’s telephone number (project Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 22 information) and discloses change information (task information). Ans. 28 (citing Reed, ¶¶90, 91). We agree with the Examiner. We additionally note that, without reciting further functionality, “deliverable/project” and “task” are labels that merely describe the content of data, and therefore constitute non-functional descriptive material. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32. Claim 33 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 33, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8-9 (citing Reed, ¶90). Appellants argue Reed does not disclose all claim limitations. App. Br. 34-35. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed creates tagged communications and that Reed stores updated information in a database when received. Ans. 29 (citing Reed, ¶¶31-35, 90-94). We agree with the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program receiving information (a tagged communication) from the provider to determine when information has been updated by the provider describes a communication system configured to attach a task tag to a communication, as recited by claim 33. See Reed, ¶32. We are agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program executing instructions associated with the information to store the updated information describes a separate tracking system configured to automatically enter predetermined information of the task tag of the communication into a database in a storage device, as recited by claim 33. See Reed, ¶32. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 33. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 23 Claim 34 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 34, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 9 (citing Reed, ¶¶31-35, 90-94, 180). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose all claim limitations. App. Br. 35-36. In response, the Examiner explains that Reed creates tagged communications, stores updated information in a database, and generates responses. Ans. 30 (citing Reed, ¶¶31-35, 90-94). We agree with the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program receiving information (a tagged communication) from the provider to determine when information has been updated by the provider describes sending a communication and attaching a task tag to the communication, as recited in claim 34. See Reed, ¶32. We also agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program executing instructions associated with the information to store the updated information (also a tagged communication) describes recording, by an automatic database agent, at least a portion of data in the task tag into a database in a storage device, as recited in claim 34. See Reed, ¶32. We further agree with the Examiner that Reed’s notifying a user of updated information and generating responses for the consumer describe automatically sending a communication by the automatic database agent based, at least partially, on the data in the task tag, as recited in claim 34. See Reed, ¶32. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 34. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 24 Claim 35 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 35, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 9 (citing Reed, ¶¶31, 90, 93, 177- 183). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose all claim limitations. App. Br. 36-37. We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program receiving information from the provider to determine when information has been updated by the provider describes searching a first communication to determine if the first communication has a task tag, as recited by claim 35. See Reed, ¶32. We additionally note that, without reciting further functionality, “task topic” and “task progress” are labels that merely describe the content of data, and they therefore constitute non-functional descriptive material as they do not further limit the claimed invention functionally. We also agree with the Examiner that Reed’s notifying a user of updated information and generating responses for the consumer describe automatically sending a second communication by an automated database agent based upon data in the task tag, as recited by claim 35. See Reed, ¶32. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35. Claim 36 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 36, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 9 (citing Reed, ¶¶90, 93, 177-83). Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose all claim limitations. App. Br. 37. Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 25 We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program receiving information (a tagged communication) from the provider to determine when information has been updated by the provider describes creating a communication and attaching a task tag to the communication, as recited in claim 36. Notably, the received information is used for identification of the task of updating, and thus, is a tagged communication. See Reed, ¶32. We additionally note that, without reciting further functionality, “task topic” and “task progress” are labels that merely describe the content of data, and they therefore constitute non-functional descriptive material as they do not further limit the claimed invention functionally. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION Claim 15 We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 15, that Reed and Wolton collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 10. The Examiner relies on Wolton for teaching instant messaging. Ans. 10 (citing Wolton, Abstract). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide instant messaging, as taught by Wolton, in order to communicate quicker. Ans.10. Appellants argue that Reed and Wolton do not teach the tagged communication includes an instant electronic message, as recited in claim 15. App. Br. 37-38. An argument that merely points out what a claim recites is unpersuasive. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more Appeal 2010-009386 Application 10/724,845 26 substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). We are, therefore, not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 17-36 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 16 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED-IN-PART babc