10878297 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)

Ex Parte Atkins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 2013

10878297 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BARRY D. ATKINS, BRYCE A. CURTIS, and PETER F. HAGGAR ____________ Appeal 2010-008601 Application 10/878,297 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008601 Application 10/878,297 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1-7, 13-28, and 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a Mobile Data Service used to push a SOAP envelope to a handheld device in the form of a message. In another embodiment, a requesting application server generates a key in addition to the SOAP envelope for the request. The handheld device is sent a message via Short Message Service (SMS) containing the key, and the mobile device uses the key to retrieve or “pull” the SOAP envelope for the request. In yet another embodiment, SOAP envelopes are transmitted as raw data to a handheld device on a particular designated TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) port. Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: transmitting a text message to a mobile communications device, wherein the text message contains a message identifier associated with a web service protocol message; receiving a request from the mobile communications device, wherein the request identifies the web service protocol message; and in response to receiving the request, transmitting the web service protocol message to a designated port of the mobile communications device to cause the mobile communications device to execute a web service application in accordance with the web service protocol message. Appeal 2010-008601 Application 10/878,297 3 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, 13, 16-22, 24, 26-28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Payrits (US 2004/0215824 A1; Oct. 28, 2004) in view of Lahti (US 2003/0101246 A1; May 29, 2003). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 14, 15, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Payrits in view of Lahti and Fox (US 6,654,786 B1; Nov. 25, 2003). 3. The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Payrits in view of Fox. ISSUES The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that: 1. The combination of Payrits in view of Lahti teaches all the limitations of claim 1; and 2. The combination of Payrits and Fox teaches determining that an SMS message contains a key that corresponds to a SOAP envelope as recited in claim 23. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3-7, 13, 16-22, 24, 26-28, and 30 Appellants argue that Payrits does not teach the limitation of “transmitting a text message to a mobile communications device, wherein the text message contains a message identifier associated with a web service protocol message” as recited in the claim 1 (emphasis added) (Br. 12). Appeal 2010-008601 Application 10/878,297 4 Appellants assert that Payrits’s SIP INVITE does not contain a message identifier associated with a web services protocol message (Br. 12). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner that Payrits identifies the SIP INVITE message with a message identifier for the web service protocol message (SOAP) identified as SOAP 1.1 in Example 3 and SOAP 1.2 in Example 4 (¶ [0058]; Ans. 9). Appellants further argue that Payrits does not teach the limitation of “receiving a request from the mobile communications device, wherein the request identifies the web service protocol message” (emphasis added) (Br. 13). Appellants explain that even though Payrits teaches sending back a “SIP OK” message, Payrits does not teach or suggest having a request from the mobile device that “identifies the web service protocol message” (Br. 13). The Examiner finds (Ans. 9), and we agree, that the mobile terminal returns SIP OK message in response to the SIP INVITE message which includes the type of SOAP version based on the media descriptor (i.e., mobile terminal returns SIP OK and address to the WSPP 802) (see ¶ [0064]; Fig. 8). Appellants further argue that Payrits does not teach the limitation of “in response to receiving the request, transmitting the web service protocol message to a designated port of the mobile communications device to cause the mobile communications device to execute a web service application in accordance with the web service protocol message” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 13). We do not agree. Payrits teaches that WSPP 802 forwards the SOAP request (i.e., web service protocol message) to the specified address of the Appeal 2010-008601 Application 10/878,297 5 mobile terminal and receives a SOAP response (Fig. 8; ¶ [0064]; Ans. 9-10). The Examiner relied on Lahti for the teaching of a designated port (i.e., application ID or port number) of the mobile communication device to cause the mobile communication device to access a web service application in accordance with the web service protocol message (Ans. 10; ¶¶ [0049]- [0050]). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a designated port of the mobile communication device to cause the mobile communication device to access a web service application in accordance with the web service protocol message in order to deliver the data to the appropriate application (Ans. 10; Lahti’s ¶ [0054]). We further note that we agree with the Examiner that the port numbers are not physical ports and are logical ones (Ans. 12). A mobile device’s antenna is the only physical port for the wireless device and all the signals for the mobile device have to come through the antenna (Ans. 12). The designated port in Lahti is an application 10 identifying the specific user agent among the user agents because the mobile terminal 408 has many user agents, and the port number/application 10 could specify the user agent which can provide the service (Fig. 4; ¶ [0049]). Appellants argue that Lahti is teaching that the port numbers included in the data sent to the mobile terminals relate to server port and not ports on the mobile device (Br. 14). Lahti teaches a mobile device using application 10 (port number) it receives to identify the specific user agent that can be used (¶ [0049] (“[f]or a particular application ID, . . . the terminal 408 accesses a particular user agent”); Fig. 4). Appeal 2010-008601 Application 10/878,297 6 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejection of claims 3-7, 13, 16-22, 24, 26-28, and 30 which were not separately argued. Claim 23 Appellants argue that neither Payrits nor Fox teaches or suggests determining that a SMS message contains a key that corresponds to a SOAP envelope (App. Br. 17). Appellants particularly argue that even though Fox does teach using SMS messages for sending short messages to wireless clients (col. 2, ll. 1-22), Fox never teaches or suggests using SOAP or SOAP envelopes (Br. 27). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner that Payrits teaches receiving a message (i.e., SIP invite) that includes an SIP INVITE media descriptor (i.e., key corresponding to the web service protocol message SOAP such as SOAP 1.1 or SOAP 1.2) (Ans. 7-8, 14). In response to a determination that the message service contains a key corresponding to a SOAP envelope, requesting the SOAP envelope from a remote server using the key (mobile terminal returns a SIP ok and the address of the mobile terminal to the WSPP so that the WSPP can forward the SOAP request to the mobile) (Ans. 7-8; ¶ [0064]; Fig. 8). The Examiner relied on Fox for the teaching of receiving an SMS message including a key. Fox teaches receiving a SMS (col. 12, ll. 55-57) which informs the wireless client that a notification is in the proxy server is awaiting delivery (col. 13, ll. 15-17) and specifies an address from which information can be pulled (col. 7, ll. 19-20). The specified address in the SMS message can also be interpreted as a key that can be used to pull the Appeal 2010-008601 Application 10/878,297 7 information. Thus, the received SMS message includes a key (i.e., specified address). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a method of receiving a SMS containing a key that corresponds to the SOAP envelope in providing notification to the mobile terminal so that the mobile terminal can receive the information from the server. With respect to Appellants’ argument that an electronic scan of Fox reveals that Fox never uses the term “key” (Br. 17), we note that there is no ipsissimis verbis test for determining whether a reference discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23. Claims 2, 14, 15, and 25 We also pro forma affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 14, 15, and 25 which were not argued in the Brief. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in finding that: 1. The combination of Payrits in view of Lahti teaches all the limitations of claim 1; and 2. The combination of Payrits and Fox teaches determining that an SMS message contains a key that corresponds to a SOAP envelope as recited in claim 23. Appeal 2010-008601 Application 10/878,297 8 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 13-28, and 30 is affirmed. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED babc