Ex Parte Geekee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2012

10740410 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 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.
10/740,410 12/22/2003 Harpreet Geekee 7000-619 2465
27820 7590 03/30/2012
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
100 REGENCY FOREST DRIVE
SUITE 160
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
LIU, LIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2012 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 HARPREET GEEKEE and DAVID TWEEDIE
____________

Appeal 2010-001049
Application 10/740,410
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR. and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-001049
Application 10/740,410

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-45. Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002). We affirm.
Introduction
The invention relates to communication services, in particular, to
methods and apparatus of delivering services. See generally Specification.

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:

1. A system comprising:

a file repository storing at least one application description file, the at
least one application description file containing a description of at least one
service; and

an end-user device adapted to provide access to communication
services for an end-user, the end-user device adapted to download the at
least one application description file from the file repository, the end-user
device having underlying network service client components, and the end-
user device having interpreting, rendering and binding logic that interprets
and renders the at least one application description into a software
application and binds the software application to underlying network service
client components residing on the end-user device.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-26, 28-31 and 33-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Minear (U.S. Patent Number 6,996,537 B2; February
7, 2006). Answer 3-11.
Appeal 2010-001049
Application 10/740,410

3
Claims 27 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Minear and Rossotto (U.S. Patent Publication Application
2006/0235925 A1; October 19, 2006). Answer 12-13.

Issues on Appeal
Does the claim limitation “download the at least one application
description file” distinguish from downloading a “complete application?”
Does Minear disclose “the end-user device having interpreting,
rendering and binding logic that interprets and renders the at least one
application description into a software application?”

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection
Appellants argue Minear must download complete applications from
one or more application servers across a wireless network. Appeal Brief 10.
“In contrast, the present invention teaches end-user devices that download
an application description file from a file depository where the application
description file contains a description of services to be provided.” Id.
Appellants conclude, “Minear does not disclose an end-user device that is
adapted to download from a file repository at least one application
description file containing a description of at least one service.”
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. The claim limitation “at
least one application description file” does not limit the invention to at least
one file that contains only a description of an application. The limitation
indicates “at least one application description file” so even if Minear teaches
downloading a complete application as Appellants contend, the claim is not
Appeal 2010-001049
Application 10/740,410

4
distinguishable over Minear because the minimum requirement of the claim
has been met.
Appellants argue, “The subscription-based applications in Minear do
not contain a description of a service.” Appeal Brief 12. However, Minear
teaches, “Alternately, the subscription-based application can include a
license indicating that the application is subscription-based.” Minear,
column 6, lines 34-36. At the minimum, Minear describes the service as
being subscription based and therefore we do not find Appellants arguments
to be persuasive.
Appellants argue, “Minear does not disclose logic that interprets and
renders the application description into a software application, and then
binds the software application to underlying network service client
components residing on the end-user device.” Appeal Brief 13.
However, Minear teaches:
The user of the wireless device 12,18,20,22 can also selectively
delete a software application from the local database, and if the
software application was subscription-based, the application
provider for use of the subscribed software application should
no longer charge the user. Thus, the deletion of the
subscription-based application must be communicated to the
accounting module.
Minear, column 6, lines 40-46.
Minear discloses wherein subscription based applications (application
description files) are rendered into the operating systems (software
applications) of the wireless devices where the applications are bounded. Id.
The operating systems interpret the subscription based applications and
Appeal 2010-001049
Application 10/740,410

5
communicate accordingly upon utilization or deletion. Id. Therefore, we do
not find Appellants arguments persuasive. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
Appellants contend independent claims 17, 23, 28, 33 and 34 are
patentable for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Appeal
Brief 15. Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17, 23,
28, 33, and 34 for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. For the
above reasons, we also affirm the rejections of dependent claims 2-16, 18-
22, 24-26, 29-31, 35-45 whose merits are not separately argued. In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
Appellants only argue Minear does not teach or suggest the limitations
of independent claims 23 and 28 and Rossotto fails to address the deficiency
of Minear. Appeal Brief 16. Appellants conclude claims 27 and 32, which
depend upon claims 23 and 28, respectively, are patentable over the
combination of Minear and Rossotto. We sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 27 and 32 for the same reasons as stated
above.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-26, 28-31 and 33-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 27 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.

Appeal 2010-001049
Application 10/740,410

6
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

pgc