Ex Parte Boudreau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 3, 2017

12172037 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3, 2017)

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.
12/172,037 07/11/2008 Jesse Boudreau 32482-US-PAT2 4111
95866 7590 04/05/2017
Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P.L.
551 NW 77th street
Suite 111
Boca Raton, EL 33487
EXAMINER
TAKELE, MESEKER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/05/2017 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):
ptoboc a @ fggbb .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JESSE BOUDREAU, THOMAS MURPHY,
and ALAN PANEZIC
Appeal 2016-006445
Application 12/172,037
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-006445
Application 12/172,037
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 2—24. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 5 under appeal reads as follows:
5. A computerized method comprising:
presenting, on a user interface displayed by a server, one
or more administration scenarios for a mobile device, the user
interface displaying the one or more administration scenarios
corresponding to a plurality of administration parameters;
receiving, via the user interface, a user selection of at
least one of the one or more administration scenarios displayed
on the user interface, wherein the administration scenarios
comprise setting a password, forgetting a password, misplacing
a mobile device, losing a mobile device, and managing modes
of operation of the mobile device;
identifying, without interaction from the user, one or
more of the administration parameters to implement the
selected at least one administration scenario, the one or more
administration parameters are operable to configure the mobile
device for the selected at least one administration scenario; and
transmitting the one or more administration parameters to
the mobile device.
Rejection
Claims 2—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Parker (US 7,006,820 Bl, Feb. 28, 2006) in view of
2
Appeal 2016-006445
Application 12/172,037
Kenney (US 2005/0186954 Al, Aug. 25, 2005) and in further in view of
Shashikumar (US 2006/059539 Al, Mar. 16, 2006). Final Act. 4—20.1
Appellants ’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Parker does not disclose that one or more administrative
scenarios corresponding to a plurality of administrative
parameters are displayed on a user interface of a server and the
parameters corresponding to a user-selected scenario are
transmitted to a mobile device. . . .
Parker does not even disclose that the server has a user
interface or even a display of any kind. . . .
. . . Parker does not teach displaying one or more user
administration scenarios on a user interface of the server.
App. Br. 8, 12 (emphasis added).
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The abstract of Parker discloses “automatically selecting
conditions and parameters (such as scheduled times) for
wireless programming of selected mobile devices” and
“automatically performing wireless programming of those
mobile devices using the selected conditions and parameters.”
According to dictionary.com, the general definition of
automatic is “having the capability of starting, operating,
moving, etc., independently” or “(of a device, mechanism, etc.)
able to activate, move, or regulate itself.” Thus, the use of the
term “automatically” implies without user intervention. In
contrast, claim 5 specifically recites “receiving, via the user
interface, a user selection of at least one of the one or more
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2—\ and 6—24. Except for
our ultimate decision, claims 2—A and 6—24 are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal 2016-006445
Application 12/172,037
administration scenarios displayed on the user interface.”
There is nothing in abstract of Parker that discloses the claimed
element.
Reply Br. 2—3 (footnote omitted).
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 5 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as
our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following additional points.
As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree. The Examiner
finds, and we agree:
Parker in col., 9 line 49-59, abstract and Figure 2, further
disclose, select conditions and parameters (such as scheduled
times) for wireless programming of selected mobile devices
which are selected automatically, but if the update server is
unable to find an acceptable schedule (that is, one that is
acceptable to both the server portion 140 and optionally to the
customer 122), it presents a signal to the administrator 142 and
receives a suggested schedule from the administrator 142. So
the examiner interpret present signal as displaying and
receiving a suggested schedule from an admin is receiving, see
col., 9 line 49-59.
Ans. 4—5 (emphasis added).
4
Appeal 2016-006445
Application 12/172,037
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Parker teaches “(server)
administrator is an individual or other entity responsible for administering,
scheduling, and performing wireless programming of the mobile device”
(Ans. 3 4) and, thus, the present signal would we displayed for the
administrator (Ans. 7).
As to Appellants’ above contention 2, in the Reply Brief, Appellants
present for the first time a new argument against the rejection of claim 5. In
the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, we decline to
consider an argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. This is
because, as the Examiner has not been provided a chance to respond, and in
the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, these arguments
would be deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first
raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima,
93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (explaining that arguments and
evidence not timely presented in the Principal Brief, will not be considered
when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why
the argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 ( BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly
interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument
that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good
cause.”). Appellants have provided this record with no such showing of
good cause.
Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 2—24.
5
Appeal 2016-006445
Application 12/172,037
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—24 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