Ex Parte Moore et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 201610404110 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation