Ex Parte Griffin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

12855972 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/855,972 08/13/2010
95866 7590 03/23/2016
Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P,L,
551 NW 77th street
Suite 111
Boca Raton, FL 33487
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chris Michael GRIFFIN
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1400-115U 1077
EXAMINER
AHMED, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 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):
ptoboca@fggbb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRIS MICHAEL GRIFFIN,
DAVID JARAY HANSON, PHILIP VON HATTEN, and
MICHAEL RAO
Appeal2014-003372
Application 12/855,972
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Research In Motion Limited as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003372
Application 12/855,972
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to methods and apparatus for managing
notifications for service events. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
1. A communications method comprising:
opening a communication channel between a service event
source and an event management platform;
at the event management platform, generating a request to the
service event source, the request including information
associated with the communication channel and requested event
information related to a plurality of services offered by the
service event source for a mobile wireless device associated with . .
a given service user;
sending the request to the service event source;
maintaining the communication channel open to receive
notifications transmitted from the service event source including
requested event information related to the plurality of services
offered by the service event source and related to the single
service user;
providing the notifications to the mobile wireless device
associated with the given service user.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-22, and 24--28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Conneely (US 2003/0050046;
published Mar. 13, 2003).
Claims 2, 9, 16, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Conneely and common practices
in the art.
2
Appeal2014-003372
Application 12/855,972
Claims 7, 14, 21, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Conneely and Yajnik et al. (US
2004/0076155; published Apr. 22, 2004).2
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants'
conclusion that the Examiner has erred.
With respect to anticipation of claim 1, we agree with Appellants that
the Examiner has not shown that the step of "maintaining the
communication channel open to receive notifications transmitted from the
service event source including requested event information related to the
plurality of services offered by the service event source and related to the
single service user," recited in claim 1, is found, either expressly or
inherently, in Conneely. App. Br. 6-11; Reply Br. 2--4.
Although the Examiner has identified several possible communication
channels in Conneely, the Examiner has not identified with sufficient clarity
where Conneely teaches that a communication channel, opened between a
service event source and an event management platform, is maintained open
to receive notifications from the service event source, as claim 1 requires.
See Final Act. 2-3 (citing Conneely i-fi-f 17, 22, 33-34, Figs. 1 and 2); Final
Act. 7-8 (citing Conneely i-fi-133-36, Fig. 2); Ans. 4 (citing Conneely i-f 17,
Fig. 1).
2 The Examiner inadvertently included claims 7, 14, 21, and 28 in the
statement of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection, as applied to claim I.
3
Appeal2014-003372
Application 12/855,972
In particular, we find that the Examiner's explanation in the Answer
that, in Conneely, "all requests to the device cluster 120 which travel
through unguided communication medium 124 have to be over an open
channel (an allocated channel)" is insufficient to show that the
communication channel between the service event source and event
management platform previously identified by the Examiner is maintained
open to receive notifications transmitted from the service event source. See
Ans. 4; see also Final Act 2-3, 7-8. We also agree with Appellants that the
Examiner's further line of reasoning that, because Conneely involves a
wireless system, "a channel has to be allocated for use by a wireless device
(i.e. maintained open)," does not make up for the above-noted deficiency in
Conneely' s teachings with respect to anticipating the subject matter of claim
1. See Ans. 4; Reply Br. 2.
On the record before us, because the Examiner has not identified in
Conneely the disputed claim limitations, we are persuaded that the Examiner
has erred in finding that Conneely anticipates the subject matter of claim 1,
as well as independent claims 8, 15, and 22, which recite similar limitations.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-22,
and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Additionally, because the Examiner
has not pointed to any teaching in Y ajnik or knowledge in the art to
overcome the noted deficiencies of Conneely, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16, 21, 23, and 28.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-28 is reversed.
4
Appeal2014-003372
Application 12/855,972
REVERSED
5