Ex Parte Drudis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2014

11413550 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANTONI DRUDIS, BILL SERRA, and RAFAEL
LUIS BRUGNINI MALLO
____________________

Appeal 2012-007009
Application 11/413,550
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-007009
Application 11/413,550
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
4–7, 9, 10, 14–18, 21–24, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 33–42. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to providing different network services to a
network agent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method of providing differing services through a single
network to a single network agent, the method comprising:

receiving at a network a network agent identifier from a
network agent, wherein the network agent identifier comprises
data that identifies the network agent and which identifies to the
network a plurality of services that the network agent is eligible
to receive through the network;

receiving at the network a service qualifier for the
network agent, wherein the service qualifier is sent to the
network from the network agent and identifies to the network a
service, of the plurality of services, to be provided to the
network agent through the network and that the network agent
is entitled to receive, and identifies an account to be associated
by the network for the service provided to the network agent,
and wherein the service qualifier is determined by the network
agent from a password provided by a user to the network agent;

providing the service comprising a first service through
the network to the network agent when the service qualifier is a
first service qualifier; and

providing the service comprising a second service
through the network to the network agent when the service
qualifier is a second service qualifier.
Appeal 2012-007009
Application 11/413,550
3

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fougnies US 5,854,975 Dec. 29, 1998
de Jong US2003/0084171 A1 May 1, 2003
Keeler US 2003/0233580 A1 Dec. 18, 2003
Marsico US 2004/0162092 A1 Aug. 19, 2004
Batni US 7,120,419 B2 Oct. 10, 2006
Kay US 7,146,404 B2 Dec. 5, 2006

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 5–7, 9, 10, 15–18, 22–24, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35–38, 41, and 42
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Keeler
and de Jong.
Claims 4, 14, 21, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over de Jong, Keeler, and Kay.
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Keeler, de Jong, and Batni.
Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over de Jong, Keeler, and Marsico.
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over de Jong, Keeler, and Fougnies.1(Ans. 20).

1 We note that the Examiner indicates the Marsico reference in the
introduction of the rejection, but the body of the rejection discusses the
Fougnies reference. We find this to be harmless error.
Appeal 2012-007009
Application 11/413,550
4
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Keeler teaches every limitation of independent
claim 1, including “receiving at the network a service qualifier for the
network agent, wherein the service qualifier is sent to the network from the
network agent and identifies to the network a service, . . . wherein the
service qualifier is determined by the network agent from a password
provided by a user to the network agent” (Ans. 5–8). The Examiner
additionally relies on de Jong to support the rejection over Keeler (Ans. 9).
Appellants contend “Keeler merely discloses providing a password to
the network, which is used by a network provider to authenticate access.
This stands in contrast with the present claims, wherein the password is used
by the network agent (the mobile device) to generate the service qualifier,
and the service qualifier is sent to the network.” (App. Br. 13). Appellants
additionally contend “[w]hile de Jong may provide for input of password at
the user-controlled device, the password is used to validate or authenticate
the user, and not used as a basis to determine services the user-controlled
device is entitled to receive from a network, as claimed” (App. Br. 11–12).
We agree with Appellants.
The Examiner has not shown either reference discloses a network
agent that sends a service qualifier to a network that identifies a service to be
provided to the network agent where “the service qualifier is determined by
the network agent from a password provided by a user to the network
agent,” as recited in claim 1. Although both Keeler and de Jong disclose
sending a password to a network, the password in each of the references is
used only for authentication of a user by the network, and not used by a
network agent to determine a service qualifier that identifies a service to the
network (see Keeler, ¶¶ 115 and 121–122; de Jong, ¶¶ 123, 219). Moreover,
Appeal 2012-007009
Application 11/413,550
5
as Appellants note (Reply Br. 4), the Examiner’s response appears to be
mistakenly directed to different claims and a different reference than those at
issue in this case (see Ans. 20–24). Accordingly, the Examiner has not
rebutted Appellants’ finding of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 10 and 18 which
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 4–7, 9, 14–17, 21–
23, 34–42 for similar reasons.
Although independent claim 24 does not recite a commensurate
limitation to the claim 1 limitation “receiving at the network a service
qualifier for the network agent, . . . the service qualifier is determined by the
network agent from a password provided by a user to the network agent,”
the Examiner nevertheless relies on the claim 1 rejection for the different
claim 24 limitation “receive a service qualifier for the network agent from
the network agent, wherein the service qualifier identifies to the network one
account of a plurality of accounts to be charged by the network for services
provided to the network agent” (see Ans. 15). Appellants contend “Keeler
does not disclose receiving from a network agent a service qualifier that
identifies an account, as recited in claim 24. Rather, Keeler merely discloses
receiving a user name and password, which may be used by the network to
authenticate a user account.” (App. Br. 13). We agree with Appellants.
As claim 1 does not recite receiving from a network agent a service
qualifier identifying an account, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 does not
make specific findings regarding this claim 24 feature (see Ans. 5–9).
Absent a relevant response by the Examiner specifically showing that Keeler
or de Jong either alone or in combination disclose this feature, we are
Appeal 2012-007009
Application 11/413,550
6
constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 24, and dependent claims 27, 28, 30, 31, and 33 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10, 14–18, 21–24,
27, 28, 30, 31, and 33–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4–7, 9,
10, 14–18, 21–24, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 33–42 are reversed.

REVERSED

Ssc