Ex Parte Yoakum

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

12981061 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

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.
12/981,061 12/29/2010 John H. Yoakum 4366-957 5842
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
02/01/2017 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 2016-004214
Application 12/981,061
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1—21. See Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Avaya, Inc., as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 31, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed March 4, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed January
4, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed March 3, 2015, “Final Act.”), and
the Specification (filed December 29, 2010, “Spec.”) for their respective
details.
Appeal 2016-004214
Application 12/981,061
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method and apparatus for displaying
information about an audio message. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1,9, 15, and 21 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below
1. A method for displaying information about a message,
comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a subset of audio
messages of a plurality of audio messages based on a prioritized
list of the plurality of audio messages, wherein the subset
comprises at least one audio message, the prioritized list of the
plurality of audio messages being prioritized based on an
aggregate message priority comprising a product of a first weight
and a first sender designated priority corresponding to each of
the plurality of audio messages, and a product of a second weight
and a first recipient prioritization attribute corresponding to each
of the plurality of audio messages; and
displaying, on the computing device, for each audio
message in the subset, a first sender priority indicium indicative
of the first sender designated priority of each audio message, and
a recipient priority indicium indicative of a priority
2
Appeal 2016-004214
Application 12/981,061
corresponding to the first recipient prioritization attribute of each
audio message.
References and Rejections
Greco et al. US 5,568,540 Oct. 22, 1996
Kung et al. EP 1 113 631 A2 July 4, 2001
Daniell US 7,373,607 B2 May 13, 2008
Lipton et al. US 2008/0301252 Al Dec. 4, 2008
Stranded et al. US 2010/0042717 Al Feb. 18,2010
Perkowitz et al. US 8,095,613 B1 Jan. 10, 2012
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1—5, 7, 9-12, and 14—21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Kung, Perkowitz, Lipton, and Greco.
Final Act. 6-43.
2. Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kung, Perkowitz, Lipton, Greco, and Stranded. Final
Act. 43^44.
3. Claim 8 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Kung, Perkowitz, Lipton, Greco, and Daniell. Final Act. 44-46.
3
Appeal 2016-004214
Application 12/981,061
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—and 21 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellant’s
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 6—13.
Claims 1-5,7,9-12, and 14-21: Obviousness overKung,
Perkowitz, Lipton, and Greco
Appellant argues these claims as a group in view of the limitations of
Claim 1. See App. Br. 10.
A subset of audio messages.
Appellant contends the cited art fails to teach “receiving, by a
computing device, a subset of audio messages of a plurality of audio
messages based on a prioritized list of the plurality of audio messages,” as
recited in independent Claim 1. App. Br. 9. Appellant argues the Examiner
finds Kung teaches “sorting received messages based on prioritization.” Id.
Appellant maintains Kung teaches a device that receives all messages and
permits the client to select a “sort” function to sort the media after they have
been received.3 Id. Thus Kung fails to teach receiving a subset of the
media. Id. The Examiner finds “a plurality of messages can be aggregated
and placed into subsets based on priority.” Ans. 39.
We find that Kung teaches a multimedia messaging system wherein a
user device displays a GUI that the user may operate to sort and prioritize
the user’s messages. Kung 1129; Figure 13 (cited by the Examiner). Kung
3 See App. Br. 9 (“Thus, Kung discloses receiving a set of messages, then
sorting them.”).
4
Appeal 2016-004214
Application 12/981,061
fails to teach a computing device that receives only a subset of the user’s
messages, as recited in independent Claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we
decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1—5, 7, 9-12, and 14—21.
Claims 6 and 13: Obviousness over Kung, Perkowitz,
Lipton, Greco, and Strandell
Appellant contends Claims 6 and 13 are allowable in view of the
limitations of Claim 1. App. Br. 12. The Examiner’s Answer does not
separately discuss Claims 6 or 13. Nor has the Examiner shown how the
additionally cited Strandell reference overcomes the aforementioned
deficiency with the base combination of references relied on to reject claim
1. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 6
and 13.
Claim 8: Obviousness over Kung, Perkowitz,
Lipton, Greco, and Daniell
Appellant contends Claim 8 is allowable in view of the limitations of
Claim 1. App. Br. 13. The Examiner’s Answer does not separately discuss
Claim 8. Nor has the Examiner shown how the additionally cited Daniell
reference overcomes the aforementioned deficiency with the base
combination of references relied on to reject claim 1. In view of the
foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim 8.
5
Appeal 2016-004214
Application 12/981,061
DECISION
The rejections of Claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6