Telenav, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2021

2019006630 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2021)

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.
15/202,320 07/05/2016 Ming Guo 59-221 7383
111332 7590 03/03/2021
Perspectives Law Group, Corp.
3150 De La Cruz Blvd.
Suite 206
Santa Clara, CA 95054
EXAMINER
NDIAYE, CHEIKH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2021 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):
efs@perspectiveslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MING GUO
Appeal 2019-006630
Application 15/202,320
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JAMES B. ARPIN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20, all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Telenav, Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006630
Application 15/202,320
2
TECHNOLOGY
The claims relate to selecting a channel for communication. Claim 1
is representative and is reproduced below with certain limitations
emphasized:
1. A method of operation of a computing system comprising:
receiving an application message for communicating with
a device of a sender with a messaging application installed;
determining a channel availability based on a mapping
table including a timestamp;
selecting a channel based on the channel availability for
the channel with the time stamp of least recently used; and
generating a non-application message based on converting
the application message dynamically and in real time with a
control unit for communicating via the channel with the device
of a recipient without the messaging application installed.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Xu (US 2008/0123587 A1; May 29, 2008). Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “selecting a channel based on the channel availability
for the channel with the time stamp of least recently used.”
Appellant argues that “Xu discloses only channel selector module 207
determining most appropriate communication channel available according to
usage patterns, business scenarios and/or configuration settings with no
mention of selecting communication channel based on channel with oldest
timestamp.” Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant further argues that Xu discloses
that the likelihood of selecting a channel is increased if that channel is used
Appeal 2019-006630
Application 15/202,320
3
more frequently or more recently than other channels, which is “opposite”
from the claimed limitation. Reply Br. 5; Xu ¶ 30.
The Examiner determines that “the limitation ‘a channel with a
timestamp of least recently used’ can be interpreted as a channel that has
been used in a less recently time because the channel timestamp is updated
after selection of the channel.” Ans. 7.
However, “less” recently still fails to disclose “least” recently. The
Examiner has not sufficiently shown how Xu discloses “least recently used,”
as recited in claim 1 and every other independent claim.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–20.
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 102 Xu 1–20
REVERSED