Wong Hoo Sim et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2021

2020003667 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 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.
13/143,979 07/11/2011 Wong Hoo Sim CTLP346US 1341
23552 7590 03/26/2021
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
EVANS, KIMBERLY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2021 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):
USPTO23552@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WONG HOO SIM and TECK SENG LEE
____________

Appeal 2020-003667
Application 13/143,979
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 18–20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims a method and system for managing electronic
messages in a closed network. (Title).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
Appeal 2020-003667
Application 13/143,979
2

1. A method implemented by an electronic messaging
system for managing electronic messages of one or more
devices in a closed network, the method including:
determining a quantity of credits to be expended for a
transmission of each electronic message from a sender’s device
in the closed network;
deducting the quantity of credits from the sender’s
account at a server, the server comprising a central credit
repository;
generating a user interface that enables a recipient of the
electronic message to input a relevance rating of the electronic
message in a recipient’s device;
receiving the relevance rating of the electronic message
from the recipient of the electronic message via the recipient’s
device;
crediting an incentive credit quantity to the recipient’s
account at the central credit repository;
either crediting or deducting at least one credit from the
sender’s account at the central credit repository in accordance
with the relevance rating of the electronic message; and
when the sender’s or recipient’s account at the central
credit repository is at an insufficient level, disabling the
sender’s or recipient’s account to prevent the device being
operated by a user of the sender’s or recipient’s account from
utilizing electronic messaging in the closed network,
wherein the quantity of credits to be expended is
dependent on an identity of a recipient of the electronic
message, and
wherein the accounts at the central credit repository are
analyzed to determine at least one of behavioral patterns and
electronic messaging usage patterns of users.

THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable of Enyart (US 2006/0041505 A1; published
February 23, 2006) in view of O’Regan (US 2008/0027839 A1; published
January 31, 2008).
Appeal 2020-003667
Application 13/143,979
3

ANALYSIS
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection because we agree with
Appellant that the prior art does not disclose “generating a user interface that
enables a recipient . . . to input a relevance rating,” and “receiving the
relevance rating” as recited in claim 1.
The Specification teaches that a recipient may rate a relevance of an
electronic message. This rating is transmitted to the central credit depositor
for processing. The recipient rates the relevance based on a review of the
contents of the message. Rating options include irrelevant, relevant, and
urgent, or may take the form of a scale from one to five. (Spec. 7).
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 15 and 17 of Enyart for teaching
this subject matter. We find that paragraph 15 discloses a plurality of sender
tiers, each of the tiers corresponding to a different category of senders, and
each tier having an established price. The Examiner interprets the tiers of
Enyart as teaching the relevance rating. (Ans. 7). However, the tiers
disclosed in Enyart do not relate to the relevance of a message but, rather,
relate to tiers of senders. In fact, the contents of the message are not
considered in establishing the tiers taught by Enyart.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection as it is
directed to claim 1 and claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 18–20, dependent therefrom.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9,
and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2020-003667
Application 13/143,979
4

DECISION SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 18–
20 is reversed.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6, 7,
9, 18–20
103(a) Enyart, O’Regan 1, 3, 4, 6, 7,
9, 18–20

REVERSED