Ex Parte TRAU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

15023985 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/023,985 03/22/2016
55694 7590 08/02/2018
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC)
1500 K STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-1209
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul TRAU
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.
216702-0003-00-US-251204 4780
EXAMINER
LAFONTANT, GARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
DBRIPDocket@dbr.com
penelope.mongelluzzo@dbr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL TRAU, ERIC JOHNSON,
and
FARAD SALEEM SYED 1
Appeal 2018-004921
Application 15/023,985
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "systems, methods, and computer-
readable media for tracking updates and loading data" (Spec. ,r 1 ).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Giesecke & Devrient
Mobile Security America, Inc.
Appeal2018-004921
Application 15/023,985
1. A method for monitoring updates on a data carrier
module, the method comprising:
a process of initializing a mobile device to communicate
on a telecommunications network, a first data carrier module
being physically installed in the mobile device, and the process
of initializing the mobile device comprising:
obtaining a first identifier from the first data carrier
module, the first identifier identifying the first data carrier
module;
storing a first plurality of data files from the first
data carrier module in a cache of the mobile device, the first
plurality of data files including:
a first plurality of predetermined monitored
data files, and
a first list of version numbers including a
version number for each monitored data file of the first plurality
of predetermined monitored data files;
a process of reinitializing the mobile device to
communicate on the telecommunications network, a second
data carrier module being physically installed in the mobile
device, a second plurality of data files are stored on the second
data carrier module comprising:
a second plurality of predetermined monitored data
files corresponding to the first plurality of predetermined
monitored data files, and
a second list of version numbers including a
version number for each monitored data file of the second
plurality of predetermined monitored data files, the process of
reinitializing the mobile device comprising:
obtaining a second identifier from the second data carrier
module, the second identifier identifying the second data carrier
module;
determining whether the second identifier is the same as
the first identifier; and
2
Appeal2018-004921
Application 15/023,985
in response to determining that the second identifier is
the same as the first identifier,
determining whether a version number of a
monitored data file currently stored in the cache in the first list
of version numbers is the same as a version number stored in
the second list of version numbers of a corresponding
monitored data file currently stored on the second data carrier
module;
in response to determining that the version number
of the monitored data file currently stored in the cache is not the
same as the version number of the corresponding monitored
data file currently stored on the second data carrier module:
replacing the monitored data file currently
stored in the cache with the corresponding monitored data file
from the second data carrier module; and
loading the plurality of predetermined
monitored data files from the cache after replacing the
monitored data file stored in the cache with the corresponding
monitored data file; and
in response to determining that the version number
of the monitored data file in the first list of version numbers
currently stored in the cache is the same as the version number
in the second list of version numbers of the corresponding
monitored data file currently stored on the second data carrier
module, loading the first plurality of predetermined monitored
data files from the cache without storing the corresponding
monitored data file from the second data carrier module in the
cache.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based
upon the teachings ofBerionne (US 2014/0057679 Al; published Feb. 27,
2014) and Kincaid (US 2004/0117785 Al; published June 17, 2004).
3
Appeal2018-004921
Application 15/023,985
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 10, and 1 7 together. We
address the Examiner's findings with respect to claim 1.
The Examiner finds Berionne teaches or suggests all of the claim
limitations except for explicitly reciting "a list of version of numbers
including a version number for each monitored data file of the plurality of
monitored data files to be compared with other list version," (Final Act. 5-
11) relying on Kincaid for this limitation (Final Act. 11 ).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kinkaid discloses
the contested limitation because Kincaid's "list of files constantly changes
and, thus, cannot be a predetermined list of monitored files" (App. Br. 10).
"The ever changing list of files disclosed in Kincaid is neither
'predetermined,' nor is it 'monitored"' (id.). Rather, Appellants contend,
their invention seeks to "improve the boot-up time of a wireless device by
monitoring a subset of predetermined files to speed up the loading process"
(App. Br. 10-11). Additionally, Appellants contend Kincaid does not
disclose "updating the monitored list file on the device itself if a new file is
upgraded" (App. Br. 11). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Final
Act. 5-11; Ans. 5---6). Initially, we note there is no support in Appellants'
Specification for the limitation ''predetermined monitored data files"
(emphasis added). Further, Appellants' argument about improving boot-up
time of a wireless device by monitoring a subset of predetermined files to
increase the speed of the loading process is not commensurate with the
scope of the claims as the claims do not recite monitoring a subset of
predetermined/monitored files. Appellants only address Kincaid and
4
Appeal2018-004921
Application 15/023,985
provide no arguments directed to the Examiner's findings regarding
Berionne in the Appeal Brief.
The Examiner makes reasonable findings that Berionne and Kincaid
teach and suggest version numbers (Ans. 6). Particularly, the Examiner cites
to Berionne' s paragraphs 24 through 26 and Figures 4 B, 5B, and 6B (Final
Act. 6; e.g., Berionne ,r 25 "files 29 may include various content 34 and SIM
[ data carrier module] 106 may have a file ID 30 that identifies each file
stored on SIM 106"). Berionne's paragraph 6 also discloses "receiving a
SIM version identifier for the file from the SIM card .... [and] determining
whether the SIM version identifier matches a cached version identifier in a
cache." Further, contrary to Appellants' contentions, not only does
Kincaid's paragraph 52 and Figure 4 disclose the claimed contested
limitation, but Kincaid's Abstract recites "[t]he controller compares a first
group of version identifiers associated with a first plurality of related
components in a first download module with corresponding version
identifiers associated with the first plurality of related component that are
contained in a list of latest component versions."
These sections of the cited references, along with the others the
Examiner relies on, evidence that both Berionne and Kincaid disclose
version numbers. Berionne, as the Examiner finds, teaches the version
number for each monitored data file stored in a cache of the data carrier
module (Final Act. 5-7), and Kincaid also teaches version numbers as noted
above.
Appellants further argument that Kincaid does not disclose "updating
the monitored list file on the device itself if a new file is upgraded" (App.
Br. 11) is also unpersuasive because neither claim 1 nor claims 10 and 17
5
Appeal2018-004921
Application 15/023,985
recite updating (this limitation is found in at least dependent claims 2, 11,
and 18) and is thus not commensurate in scope with the independent claims.
Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence for persuading us of
Examiner error nor have they provided arguments commensurate in scope
with the claim language. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 10 and 17 argued therewith (App. Br. 8, 12),
and dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-22 dependent therefrom and
argued for their dependency on independent claims 1, 10, and 17 (App. Br.
12).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6