Ex Parte Monroe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2016

13558406 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/558,406 07/26/2012 George T. MONROE
919 7590 10/19/2016
PITNEY BOWES INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & PROCUREMENT LAW DEPT.
37 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
MSC 01-152
DANBURY, CT 06810
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.
G-605 5471
EXAMINER
MISIURA, BRIAN THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2016 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):
iptl@pb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGE T. MONROE
Appeal2015-004907
Application 13/558,4061
Technology Center 2100
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILLAdministrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-9, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Pitney Bowes Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004907
Application 13/558,406
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to online postage dispensing systems in
which multiple servers can share the same postal security device. Abstract;
Spec. ,-i 1. Claim 1 is exemplary of the matter on appeal:
1. A postage dispensing system comprising:
a system level bus;
a plurality of servers coupled to the system level bus, each
of the servers acting as an initiator on the system level bus;
an interface device coupled to the system level bus; and
a plurality of postal security devices coupled to the
interface device, wherein each of the plurality of postal security
devices can be accessed by each of the plurality of servers via the
interface device and system level bus.
App. Br. i (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leon et al. (US 7,194,957 Bl; issued Mar. 27, 2007)
("Leon") in view of Chawla et al. (US 8,325,713 B2; issued Dec. 4, 2012)
("Chawla"). Final Act. 4-6.
Claim 6 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leon, Chawla, and Mattern et al. (US 7,921,062 B2;
issued Apr. 5, 2011) ("Mattern"). Final Act. 6.
2
Appeal2015-004907
Application 13/558,406
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leon, Chawla, and Gravell et al. (US 7,203,666 Bl; Apr.
10, 2007) ("Gravell"). Final Act. 6-9.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Leon and Chawla teaches the
claim 1 limitations. Final Act. 4-5. In particular, the Examiner finds Leon
teaches the limitations except Leon does not "specifically disclose the
claimed 'interface device' and [the Examiner] relies on Chawla for this
limitation." Id. (citing Leon col. 16, 11. 44--49, 50-53, 59 through col. 17, 1.
35; Fig. IE (elements 362, 352, 354, 360), Chawla col. 2, 1. 63 to col. 3, 1.
31; Fig. 1).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Leon's web server 352
acts on the system level bus and the PSDM (Postal Security Device Module)
servers 354 are the postal security devices. App. Br. 5. Appellant argues the
claim term "initiator" is defined as a server that can access and issue
commands over the bus 18 to access the PSD (Postal Security Device)
chassis 12. Id. (citing Spec. ,-i 13). According to Appellant, Leon's web
servers 352 do not act as initiators, but instead each of the PSDM servers
354 would be an initiator as these servers are each coupled to a respective
cryptographic module 356 and can issue commands to access the
cryptographic module. Id. at 5-6. Appellant further argues "each of the
cryptographic modules 356 of Leon is analogous to a postal security device
as recited in the present claims." Id. at 6.
Appellant then argues, using the above mapping, Leon does not teach
the limitation "each of the plurality of postal security devices can be
3
Appeal2015-004907
Application 13/558,406
accessed by each of the plurality of servers" because each of Leon's PSDM
servers 354 can only access its attached cryptographic module 356 whereas
the claims allow each of the postal security devices to be accessed by a
plurality of servers. App. Br. 6.
The Examiner finds Leon's web servers 352 are initiators because
Leon's web servers 352 access and issue commands. Ans. 3. The Examiner
finds the web servers 352 allow users 112 to communicate with PSDM
servers 3 54 for the purpose of purchasing postage and this communication
includes accessing and issuing commands over the bus 18 (communication
links 362) to access the PSD chassis 12 (PSDM servers 354). Id. (citing
Leon col. 16, 1. 50 to col. 17, 1. 17). Regarding Appellant's argument that
Leon's cryptographic modules are analogous to a postal security device, the
Examiner finds Leon teaches the contrary because Leon teaches the PSDM
server 354 performs the functions of the postal security device. Ans. 3
(citing Leon col. 17, 1. 24-28).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and instead agree
with the Examiner's above findings. Appellant provides no persuasive
evidence the Examiner errs in finding Leon's web servers 352 constitute the
claimed servers and act as initiators, and Leon's PSDM servers 354
constitute the claimed postal security devices. In view of this, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 as these claims are not
separately argued.2 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2 While a separate heading is presented for dependent claim 6, Appellant
relies on dependency to claim 1 and presents no additional argument. App.
Br. 7.
4
Appeal2015-004907
Application 13/558,406
Appellant argues independent claim 7 includes limitations
"substantially similar" to claim 1 and relies in part on arguments considered,
supra, regarding claim 1. App. Br. 7-8. Appellant argues Leon and Chawla
do not teach the following limitations:
a plurality of postal security devices to process the request,
each of the plurality of postal security devices being coupled to
the server via a system level bus and an interface device, the
interface device allowing a plurality of servers to access each of
the plurality of the postal security devices; and
wherein if the server malfunctions, a different server
coupled to the system level bus can access the selected postal
security device to perform processing of the request.
App. Br. 7.
According to Appellant, Leon and the cited references teach multiple
PSDM servers 354 "such that if one server, e.g., 354-1 goes down, another
server, e.g., 354-2, can still perform requested operations" but, "each server
can still only access those PSDs that are coupled to it and cannot access the
PSDs that are coupled to another server." App. Br. 8 (citing Gravell col. 14,
11. 21-29).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Leon, Chawla,
and Gravell teaches the limitations of claim 7. Final Act. 6-8; Ans. 4. In
addition to the findings related to the teachings of Leon and Chawla
discussed supra, with which we agree, the Examiner finds Leon's web
server 352 performs load distribution and fail over processing associated
with user requests and Gravell teaches a postage metering system in which,
if a server of the metering system fails, a backup server passes all
information to another corresponding on-line server so little to no downtime
5
Appeal2015-004907
Application 13/558,406
is experienced. Final Act. 7 (citing Leon col. 12-16; Gravell col. 14, 11. 21-
29).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 73
and dependent claims 8 and 9 as these claims are not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
3 Additionally, we note claim 7 is a method claim and recites the phrase
"wherein if the server malfunctions .... " This limitation is conditional and
entitled to no patentable weight. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-
007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
6