Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

13585324 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/585,324 08/14/2012
66547 7590 03/21/2018
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Changhwan Hwang
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1398-453 2984
EXAMINER
KIM,HEESOO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2018 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):
pto@farrelliplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHANGHWAN HWANG, SAHNGHEE BAHN, and
SUNGSOO HONG
Appeal2017-000012
Application 13/585,324
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-000012
Application 13/585,324
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-15, and 18-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for registering a
device to a server. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for registering a device in a server, the method
comprising the steps of:
connecting a first device to the server;
sending a message related to registration of a second
device with the server, from the first device to the second device;
receiving data indicating allowance of the registration at
the first device from the second device; and
in response to the allowance of the registration of the
second device with the server, registering the second device with
the server by transmitting identification information of the
second device from the first device to the server, and storing the
identification information of the second device in the server;
wherein the first device and the second device are disposed
within at least one network connected to the server.
1 Appellants indicate that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 1 ).
2
Appeal2017-000012
Application 13/585,324
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Koistinen et al.
Schwesig
US 2009/0287802 Al
US 2012/0030773 Al
REJECTIONS
Nov. 19, 2009
Feb.2,2012
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-3, 7, and 18-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Koistinen in view of Schwesig.
Claims 5, 6, 8-15, and 21-23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koistinen and Schwesig in view of
Official Notice.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1 and 18, Appellants provide the
same arguments because the controller of independent claim 18 performs
analogous functions to independent claim 1. (App. Br. 8). As a result, we
select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim and address Appellants'
arguments thereto.
With respect to illustrative independent claim 1, Appellants contend
that the Schwesig reference in the cited sections does not teach or suggest
the claimed "sending step," the "receiving step," and the "registering step"
as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 6).
Additionally, Appellants contend that the Koistinen reference
discloses in the relied upon paragraphs
storing status-related data ofUPnP/DLNA devices in a storer 250
of a mobile device so as to update the UPnP/DLNA devices and
3
Appeal2017-000012
Application 13/585,324
transmitting the status-related data to a support server.
However, Koistinen does not teach transmitting, by a first device,
identification information of a second device to the support
server when data indicating permission for the registration is
received from the second device.2
(App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4).
With respect to the Schwesig reference, the Examiner maintains:
Fig. 5 shows a user interface of the service account
accessed by the user using the terminal 120. Clicking on the
["]Active [sic] a Product" button allows the user to
activate/register a product causes the account server 105 to
generate and transmit an activation pattern [,-i 53; ,-i 54; ,-i 56].
Once the product activation code is entered at the device to be
registered, the device is registered with service account [,-i 58]
and in Fig. 9 shows one or more registered devices 915 and 920.
Hence, the devices 915 and 920 basically have given an
indication to the user that these devices are to be registered with
the service account server 105.
(Ans. 3). But, the Examiner does not respond to Appellants'
argument concerning the Koistinen reference. While we agree with
the Examiner that the Schwesig reference generally discloses
activating a product, the reference does not disclose the step of
receiving data indicating allowance of the registration at the first
device from the second device, and the Koistinen reference does not
disclose or suggest the claimed in response to the allowance of the
registration of the second device with the server, registering the
second device with the server by transmitting identification
2 We note that the language of independent claims 1 and 18 recite
"indicating allowance" rather than "indicating permission," and we interpret
Appellants' argument to be regarding the claimed and disclosed
"allowance."
4
Appeal2017-000012
Application 13/585,324
information of the second device from the first device to the server,
and storing the identification information of the second device in the
server.
As a result, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's
underlying factual findings which support the Examiner's conclusion
of obviousness. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of illustrative independent claim 1 and its
respective dependent claims 2, 3, and 7. Because claim 18 contains
similar limitations, we also cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claim 18 and dependent claims 19 and 20.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 6, 8-15, and 21-23, the
Examiner has relied upon Official Notice, but has not identified how
the Official Notice remedies the noted deficiencies above. Therefore,
we cannot sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 5, 6, 8-15, and 21-23.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-15, and 18-23 based
upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-3, 5-15, and 18-23 based upon obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
REVERSED
5