Ex Parte YoakumDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 25, 201712980968 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/980,968 12/29/2010 John H. Yoakum 4366-956 5667 48500 7590 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER MOHAMMED, ASSAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/27/2017 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): cjacquet@ sheridanross.com pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com edocket @ sheridanross .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN H. YOAKUM Appeal 2016-004078 Application 12/980,9681 Technology Center 2600 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-21, which are all the claims pending in application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. Br. 1. 2 Claim 10 is canceled. Br. 16. Appeal 2016-004078 Application 12/980,968 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to delivering prioritized audio messages to a recipient. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows with the disputed limitations italicized'. 1. A method for delivering a message, comprising: receiving, by a computing device, a plurality of audio messages destined for a recipient from a corresponding plurality of senders, respective ones of the plurality of audio messages including a corresponding first sender designated priority designated by a corresponding sender, the plurality of senders and the recipient being members of a messaging system; accessing, by the computing device, member configuration data that identifies a first recipient prioritization attribute, the first recipient prioritization attribute being based at least in part on a message attribute associated with the respective ones of the plurality of audio messages; determining, for the respective ones of the plurality of audio messages, an aggregate message priority value based on a first weight associated with the corresponding first sender designated priority and a second weight associated with the first recipient prioritization attribute; generating, by the computing device, a prioritized list of the plurality of audio messages based on the aggregate message priority value associated with the respective ones of the plurality of audio messages; and providing, by the computing device, a subset of the plurality of audio messages from a top of the prioritized list to a client device associated with the recipient [the “providing” step]. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 4-7, 11, 13, and 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Perkowitz et al. (US 8,095,613 Bl; Jan. 10, 2 Appeal 2016-004078 Application 12/980,968 2012), Dillard et al. (US 7,590,226 B2; Sept. 15, 2009), and Hale et al. (US 2008/0075244 Al; Mar. 27, 2008). Final Act. 3-19. The Examiner adds Stifelman et al. (US 8,126,120 B2; Feb. 28, 2012) to reject claim 2 (Final Act. 19-20); Kung (EP 1113631 Al; July 4, 2001) to reject claim 3 (Final Act. 20-21); Cai (US 2007/0274468 Al; Nov. 29, 2007) to reject claims 8 and 9 (Final Act. 22-24); Cai, Moore (US 2011/0161436 Al; June 30, 2011), and Balasaygun et al. (US 8,306,191 B2; Nov. 6, 2012) to reject claim 12 (Final Act. 24-27); Inon (US 7,522,712 B2; Apr. 21, 2009) to reject claim 14 (Final Act. 27-28); and Balasaygun to reject claim 15 (Final Act. 29-30). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the combination of Perkowitz, Dillard, and Hale does not teach or suggest “providing, by the computing device, a subset of the plurality of audio messages from a top of the prioritized list to a client device associated with the recipient.” Br. 9-11. In particular, Appellant argues the cited portion of Hale teaches organizing a list of messages such that higher priority messages appear at the top of the list, but does not teach limiting the provision of 3 Appeal 2016-004078 Application 12/980,968 messages to “a subset of the plurality of audio messages from a top of the prioritized list.” Br. 10. Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Hale teaches or suggests the “providing” step. As a matter of claim construction, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Claim 1 recites “a method for delivering a message, comprising” five steps. The term “comprising” is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Claim 1 requires that the computing device provide a subset of the plurality of audio messages, but because “comprising” is open-ended, claim 1 does not preclude the remainder of the plurality of audio messages from also being provided. As acknowledged by Appellant (Br. 10), Hale teaches sorting a list of a plurality of audio messages such that higher priority messages are at the top of the list. Hale 133. Hale teaches providing these sorted messages to the user. See, e.g., Hale Fig. 2. Appellant’s argument assumes that the claim language requires providing only a subset of the plurality of audio messages, not the entire set of the plurality of audio messages, but claim 1 does not recite such a limitation. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. 4 Appeal 2016-004078 Application 12/980,968 For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Perkowitz, Dillard, and Hale teaches or suggests the “providing” step. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant argues the patentability of independent claims 16 and 20 for the same reasons as claim 1. Br. 11. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of independent claims 16 and 20 for the same reasons. We also sustain the rejections of claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-19, and 21, which were not argued separately from their respective independent claims. Br. 11-13. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9 and 11- 21. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation