Ex Parte Miller

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2017

14147865 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 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.
14/147,865 01/06/2014 Michael J. Miller 5164-CRFD-865 1039
27571 7590
Ascenda Law Group, PC
333 W San Carlos St.
Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
09/20/2017 EXAMINER
DONABED, NINOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2017 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):
patents @ ascendalaw.com
tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. MILLER1
Appeal 2017-000340
Application 14/147,865
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 46—54 and 68—76, all the pending
claims in the present application. Claims 1—45, 55—67, 77, and 78 are
canceled. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is CRFD Research, Inc.,
Delaware corporation. See Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-000340
Application 14/147,865
The present invention relates generally to transferring an on-going
session from one device to another device. See Abstract.
Claim 46 is illustrative:
46. A method of transferring a session from a first client
device to a second client device, comprising:
managing, at a session server, said session, said session
being initially activated by the first client device;
receiving, at said session server, an identity of a second
client device from among a plurality of client devices to which said
session may be transferred;
pushing, by said session server, an alert from said session
server to said second client device using the identity of said second
client device, the alert serving to notify the second client device that
said session is awaiting resumption;
receiving, at said session server, instruction from said
second client device to activate said session with said second client
device;
terminating, by said session server, said session with said
first client device;
responsive to receipt of the identi[t]y of said second
client device, communicating, by said session server, a session history
to said second client device; and
resuming, by said session server, said session with said
second client device using said session history.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:2
Rl. Claims 46—50, 52—54, and 68—76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bates (US 6,963,901 Bl, Nov. 8, 2005)
and Parsons (US 6,349,337 Bl, Feb. 19, 2002); and
R2. Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
2 The Examiner withdraws the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 of claims 77
and 78 due to Appellant’s cancellation of such claims (see Ans. 2).
2
Appeal 2017-000340
Application 14/147,865
unpatentable over Bates, Parsons, and Maes (US 7,415,537 Bl, Aug. 19,
2008).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
ANALYSIS
Rejections under § 103(a)
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Bates and Parsons
collectively teach or suggest responsive to receipt of the identity of the
second client device, communicating a session history to the second client
device, as set forth in claim 46?
Appellant contends that “Parsons does not mention communication of
a session history to a second device responsively to receipt of an identity of
the second client device” (App. Br. 9). Appellant also contends that “in
Bates the session history is not transmitted to a second client device
responsively to receipt of the identity of the second client device. Instead,
browser information is transferred between two computers during a
browsing session upon identification of a ‘share event’” (id. at 12).
Appellant further contends that “Parsons reassociates a session when a user
is affiliated with a previous session and claim 46 requires communication of
a session history responsively to receiving the identity of a second client
device ... the teachings of Parsons are not the same as the recited features
of claim 46” (Reply Br. 4).
In essence, Appellant contends that neither Parson or Bates teaches or
suggests responsive to receipt of the identify] of said second client device,
3
Appeal 2017-000340
Application 14/147,865
communicating by said session server, a session history to said second client
device. We agree with Appellant.
Here, the Examiner admits that Bates does not explicitly disclose the
aforementioned limitation, but instead relies upon Parsons to disclose this
feature (see Ans. 6). As such, we shall look for error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of Parsons.
Parsons discloses “[djuring the initialization process, the server
operating system analyzes whether the user is affiliated with any previous
active session that has not yet been terminated ... if the user is affiliated
with a previous active session ... the server operating system reasssociates
the user with the previous active session” (11:65 to 12:7). In other words,
Parsons’ system transfers the user to the original/previous active session
responsive to determining that the user is affiliated with the previous active
session.
The Examiner appears to equate Parsons’ reassociating the user with a
previous session with the claimed communicating a session history
responsive to receipt of the identity of the second client device (see Ans. 3—
4). However, the Examiner fails to clearly show where/when Parsons is
receiving the identity of the second client device, and responsive thereto,
communicating a session history to the second user.
Parsons determines if a previous session is affiliated with the user and,
based thereon, transferring (i.e., re-associating) the user to this found
previous active session. Even if we assume arguendo (without deciding)
that re-associating the user with the previous active session is the same as
communicating a session history (as proffered by the Examiner), we do not
find, and the Examiner has not established, that this re-associating is done
4
Appeal 2017-000340
Application 14/147,865
responsive to receipt of the identity of the second client device (claim 46) or
responsively to the second client device having logged on to the session
server (claim 68). At best, Parsons re-associates the user responsive to
determining the user’s affiliation with a previous active session. However,
what exactly Parsons’ “affiliation check” entails is unclear. As such, the
Examiner may not resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. In re
Warner, 379, F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Thus, we agree with
Appellant that Parsons’ teachings “are not the same” as the claimed
invention (Reply Br. 4). Because we agree with at least one of the
arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of
Appellant’s other arguments.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not
support the obviousness rejection. We, accordingly, do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 46 and 68, or the rejection of claims 47—54
and 69-78, which are dependent thereon.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections.
REVERSED
5