Ex Parte Moore et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

10404110 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/404,110 0410212003
25537 7590 03/25/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard G. Moore
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.
CDR02012 7921
EXAMINER
AGWUMEZIE, CHINEDU CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD G. MOORE, GREGORY L. MUMFORD, and
DURAISAMY GUNASEKAR
Appeal2013-006883
Application 10/404,1101
Technology Center 3600
Before, ANTON W. PETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-74. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Verizon Communications Inc. as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2013-006883
Application 10/404, 110
THE INVENTION
Appellants claim a "data processing and, in particular, to permitting
access to services through instant messing communications." (Spec. para.
04).
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for controlling usage of a service providing
system, the method comprising:
receiving, via at least one processor, indication that a first party,
via an instant communications client communicating to the service
providing system a first communications session, is requesting that the
service providing system perform a service;
responsive to the indication, determining, via the at least one
processor, a usage charge to be assessed for the performing the
service;
determining, via the at least one processor, whether sufficient
funds exist to accommodate the usage charge pertaining to the
performing the service; and
conditionally causing the service providing system to perform
the service responsive to whether sufficient funds exist to
accommodate the usage charge.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Mashinsky
Titus
US 2006/0206422 Al
US 2012/0094632 Al
2
Sep. 14,2006
Apr. 19, 2012
Appeal2013-006883
Application 10/404, 110
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mashinsky in view of Titus.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We adopt the Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 4--10 of the
Answer.
2. Mashinksy discloses "the customer 200 may place a phone call to
the SCAP 210 using devices such as a regular landline phone or a wireless
phone. . .. It is to be understood that other devices may be used. In yet
another example, the customer 200 may send the request as a Short Message
Service (SMS) or Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) data transmission."
Para. 66.
3. Mashinsky discloses that the "called entity IP address/phone
number 425 represents an address or identifier of the device to be
communicated with, .... " Para. 79.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argued claims 1, 3-11, 13-21, 23-25, 27-35,
37--45, 47, 40, 51-59, 61---69, 71 and 73 as a group, arguing claim 1 as
representative. (Appeal Br. 16, 17). Thus, the remaining claims standing or
falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2007).
Appellants argue, "Mashinsky does not suggest that the
communication [to the SCAP (Service Comparison/ Acquisition Provider) by
the customer] is an 'instant communication,' as claimed." (Appeal Br. 17).
We disagree with Appellants because we find that Mashinsky
explicitly discloses using "a Short Message Service (SMS) or Wireless
3
Appeal2013-006883
Application 10/404, 110
Application Protocol (WAP) data transmission" to communicate with the
SCAP." (FF. 2). It is our understanding that at least WAP transmissions
include instant messaging.2 Notwithstanding, we find that in any case, a
SMS transmission is an instant communication to the extent that once the
user activates the "send" function of, for example, a wireless communication
device, the user has an expectation of the message being received relatively
contemporaneously thereafter.
Concerning claims 2, 12, 22, 26, 36, 46, 48, 50, 60, 70, 72, and 74,
Appellants argue,
Rather, the claims, e.g., claim 2, recite, "wherein
the step of receiving indication is responsive to the
first party engaging in instant communications
addressed to a screen name associated with the
service providing system." Thus, in accordance
with the claimed subject matter, the screen name
relates to a screen name associated with a service
providing system,. . . .
(Appeal Br. 19 ).
We disagree with Appellants. Representative claim 2 recites in
pertinent part "receiving indication is responsive to the first party engaging
in instant communications addressed to a screen name associated with the
service providing system." Our construction of this claim limitation is that
the screen name identifies the recipient service providing system.
Concerning this limitation, the Examiner found that Mashinsky discloses it
at paragraphs 65, 79 and Figure 3. (Answer 7), finding that "sending an SMS
messages or chat messages inherently involves the use of the receiver's
screen name." (Answer 10). We agree with the Examiner as this finding is
2 httQ:/isearc!1mobilecomQutin,gJechtai:g_et.com/definition/WAP (last visited 3/18/2016)
4
Appeal2013-006883
Application 10/404, 110
consistent with the disclosure found in Mashinsky which states, "[t]he called
entity IP address/phone number 425 represents an address or identifier of the
device to be communicated with .... " (FF. 3). Thus, according to
Mashinsky, the identifier associated with the called entity would be a screen
name as it would appear on the system display.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-74 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED.
5