Ex Parte Dhara et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2012

10955919 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2012)

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.
10/955,919 09/30/2004 Krishna Dhara 504026-A-US-NP(RB) 3585
95158 7590 09/11/2012
Novak Druce + Quigg LLP - Avaya Inc.
Laurian Building
2810 Laurian Lane, Suite 200
Dunkirk, MD 20754
EXAMINER
WIDHALM, ANGELA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KRISHNA DHARA and VANKATESH KRISHNASWAMY
____________

Appeal 2010-004858
Application 10/955,919
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT,
and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004858
Application 10/955,919

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-25, which are all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and an apparatus for
generating applications for communication devices based on abstraction data
of the device (see Spec. 2:1-18).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
identifying operation of the communication device;
accessing abstraction data related to the communication device;
and
generating an application that modifies the operation of the
communication device as a function of the abstraction data.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-14, 16, 17, 20-22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Turner ‘610 (US 7,254,610 B1).
(See Ans. 3-9).1
Claims 3, 15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Turner ‘610 in view of well-known prior art. (See Ans. 9-
10).

1 The Examiner has withdrawn a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 25 in the
Answer (Ans. 2).
Appeal 2010-004858
Application 10/955,919

3
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Turner ‘610 in view of Davies (US 7,043,749 B1). (See
Ans. 10).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Turner ‘610 in view of Turner ‘722 (US 7,218,722 B1).
(See Ans. 10-11).
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Turner ‘610. (See Ans. 11).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
anticipated by Turner ‘610 because the reference does not show or suggest
the claimed “generating an application” (App. Br. 14). The Examiner
responds that:
Turner explains an application is logically separated into
a model object, a view object, and a controller object (see col. 2
lines 25-28, col. 5 lines 58-60). Each of these objects is
generically referred to as a service object (see col. 3 lines 24-
26). Turner further explains that a network node sends service
objects to at least one device (see col. 4 lines 5-14) in order to
generate a network service, i.e. application (see col. 3 lines 53-
57, col. 4 line 63 - col. 5 line 2, col. 5 lines 58-61). Therefore,
Turner does teach generating an application.
(Ans. 12). We agree with the Examiner and find that Turner teaches
“generating an application” by describing service objects to generate
network based services, which include applications such as instant
messaging (see col. 4, l. 63 - col. 5, l. 2). Contrary to Appellants’ contention
(Reply Br. 5) that performing an operation in Turner ‘610 is not the same as
generating an application, we note that the Examiner properly characterized
Appeal 2010-004858
Application 10/955,919

4
generating a network service, such as instant messaging, in the reference as
the claimed generating an application (see Ans. 12).

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the reference
teaches all the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
claim 1 as being anticipated by Turner ‘610, as well as other independent
claims 12, 16, 21, 24, and 25 and the remaining dependent claims, which are
argued based on the same reasons stated for claim 1 (App. Br. 14-17).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke