T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 24, 2021

2020006225 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2021)

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.
15/833,172 12/06/2017 Ruskin Taylor Lhamon TM2-0557US 7812
132935 7590 11/24/2021
Lee & Hayes, P.C./ T-Mobile
601 W. Riverside Avenue
Suite 1400
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
HAMMONDS, MARCUS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2021 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):
lhpto@leehayes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RUSKIN TAYLOR LHAMON, and MARK IL AN
____________________

Appeal 2020-006225
Application 15/833,1721
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention concerns remote triggering of a communication
through a computing device. A local device can provide an alert to user
equipment (e.g., a remote device). The remote device can respond by
instructing the local device to initiate a communication between the local

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states that the real party in interest is T-Mobile
USA, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006225
Application 15/833,172

2
device, the remote device, and a network device (e.g., a public safety
answering point). Alerts and communications can be directed or routed by a
computing device. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
one or more processors;
a memory; and
one or more components stored in the memory and
executable by the one or more processors to perform operations
comprising:
transmitting an alert associated with a computing device
to a user equipment, the alert indicative of a security event
associated with an environment in which the computing device
is installed;
receiving, from the user equipment, a request to initiate a
first communication based at least in part on the alert;
initiating the first communication between the computing
device and the user equipment;
initiating a second communication between the
computing device and a network device associated with a
public-safety answering point, wherein a first location
associated with the network device is based at least in part on a
second location of the computing device; and
transmitting data associated with the alert to at least one
of the user equipment or the network device.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Elliot US 2008/0118039 A1 May 22, 2008
Tuck US 2015/0163651 A1 June 11, 2015

Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Elliot and Tuck.

Appeal 2020-006225
Application 15/833,172

3
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Apr. 17, 2020), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug.
31, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 24, 2020) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Does the combination of Elliot and Tuck teach or suggest initiating a
second communication between the computing device and a network device
associated with a public-safety answering point, wherein a first location
associated with the network device is based at least in part on a second
location of the computing device?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Elliott fails to teach or suggest “initiating a
second communication between the computing device and a network device
associated with a public-safety answering point, wherein a first location
associated with the network device is based at least in part on a second
location of the computing device.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends that
even if home security system 150 of Elliot could be considered a computing
device, Elliot does not teach home security system 150 communicating with
E911 Provider Service 170 or Police Dispatch Operator 190. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant further argues that if the Examiner considers the Alarm
Monitoring Service 130 to correspond to the claimed computing device, the
Examiner’s rejection is erroneous because the Alarm Monitoring Service
does not teach or suggest “[a] system comprising: one or more processors; a
memory; and one or more components stored in the memory and executable
by the one or more processors.” Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-006225
Application 15/833,172

4
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive to show Examiner error.
The Examiner finds that Alarm Monitoring Service 130 and Home Security
System 150 of Elliot, taken together, correspond to the claimed computing
device: “The present invention combines the functions of the Alarm
Monitoring Service 130 and the Home Security System 150 in Elliot into a
single entity.” Ans. 4. Elliot teaches Alarm Monitoring Service 130
connecting an outgoing call to the E911 Center 170. Elliot ¶ 20. Elliot
further teaches that the E911 provider then looks up which police
department should be called for the customer based upon their home
address, which is cross-referenced from the Caller ID number used by the
Alarm Monitoring Service. Elliot ¶ 21. We therefore agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Elliot teaches a first location associated with the
network device, based at least in part on a second location of the computing
device, as the claims require.
Appellant’s contention that Elliot does not teach the claimed
processors, memory, and components stored in memory is also not well
taken. See Reply Br. 4. First, the Examiner finds that the claimed processors
and memory are inherently taught in Elliot, a finding that Appellant does not
explicitly traverse. Ans. 4. Second, Elliot teaches that “[a]larm monitoring
service 130 may comprise a traditional alarm monitoring company, using
suitable hardware and software to implement the present invention.” Elliot
¶ 14. We find that Elliot’s disclosure of “suitable hardware and software” is
sufficient to correspond to the claimed one or more processors; a memory;
and one or more (executable) components stored in the memory.
Appellant contends that Tuck fails to teach or suggest initiating a
second communication between the computing device and a network device
Appeal 2020-006225
Application 15/833,172

5
associated with a public-safety answering point. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant
explains that remote device 130 of Tuck may be configured to place a call to
an existing emergency call service provider 140, which itself could be
configured to receive identifying information for a customer premises 105,
to query data store 150, and/or to place a call to PSAP 145. Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it is not germane to
the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds that Elliot, rather than Tuck,
teaches this claim element. Elliot teaches “initiating the emergency call to
the E911 Service Provider 170 routed based on the location provided by the
Alarm Monitoring System 130 to the E911 Service Provider.” Final Act. 4,
citing Elliot Figs. 1, 2, ¶¶ 20, 21 (emphasis omitted).
Taken together, then, we determine that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1–20 as being unpatentable over Elliot and Tuck. We
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Elliot and Tuck teaches initiating a second
communication between the computing device and a network device
associated with a public-safety answering point, wherein a first location
associated with the network device is based at least in part on a second
location of the computing device.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Elliot, Tuck 1–20

Appeal 2020-006225
Application 15/833,172

6
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED