Ex Parte Naveh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2016

13284057 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/284,057 10/28/2011
15757 7590 05/13/2016
Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
2200 Ross A venue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gadi Naveh
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.
QLXX.P0694US/11403335 3013
EXAMINER
JEUDY, JOSNEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2016 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GADI NA VEH, RISHI A VTAR, RITESH UDAPUDI, and
FERMIN ORDAZ
Appeal2014-007533
Application 13/284,057
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-007533
Application 13/284,057
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-8 and 12-23. Claims 9-11 have been cancelled. App. Br. 26.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1, 8, and 15 under appeal read as follows (emphasis
added):
1. A service broker system, comprising:
an authentication module to authenticate a plurality of devices
with an account from a plurality of accounts of the service broker
system based on a unique identifier of each device from the plurality
of devices, each device from the plurality of devices associated with
the account;
a service access module to access data at a plurality of services
using credentials stored at the account; and
a delivery module to provide the data to each device from the
plurality of devices.
8. A method, comprising:
from a service broker system, comprising a server, providing a
plurality of device descriptors to a user, each device descriptor from
the plurality of device descriptors representing a device associated
with an account at the service broker system;
the service broker system receiving an identifier of a device
descriptor selected by the user from the plurality of device descriptors;
the service broker system accessing data associated with the
device represented by the selected device descriptor at the account;
and
the service broker system providing the data to a new device to
configure the new device to associate with the account at the service
broker system.
2
Appeal2014-007533
Application 13/284,057
15. A non-transitory processor-readable medium storing code
representing instructions that when executed at a processor cause the
processor to:
receive an association request relative to a first account of a
service broker system from a new device including a unique identifier
of the new device;
determine that the new device is associated with a second
account of the service broker system;
in response to the association request relative to the first
account, disassociate the new device from the second account; and
associate the new device with the first account.
Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 12, 13, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Barkie et
al. (US 2012/0185925 Al; July 19, 2012) and Eaton et al. (US
l"'\.A.A.,..../A.1A.1,....Al,.... ... 1 "lt.Jr f"\,f'\.l"'\.A.A.,....>.1~· ...... 'Al 11"'\.
LUUj/UlUU4j Al; lVlay L'J, LUUjJ.' !'lllal Act. 4-1.L
2. The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Barkie, Eaton, and Holmes-Kinsella
(US 2002/0147000 Al; Oct. 10, 2002).2 Final Act. 12-13.
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-7, 12, 13, and 21, all of
which stand or fall with claim 1. As to claim 21, Appellants merely repeat
the argument for claim 1. Therefore we group it with claim 1. As to claim
22, although argued separately, we do not reach that argument as our
decision as to claim 1 is determinative. Except for our ultimate decision,
claims 2-7, 12, 13, 21, and 22 are not discussed further herein.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 14. Rather, Appellants
merely reference "the independent claims." App. Br. 18. Thus, the rejection
of this claim turns on our decision as to the rejection of claim 8. Except for
our ultimate decision, this claim is not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2014-007533
Application 13/284,057
3. The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Barkie, Eaton, and Ohara (US
2006/0170965 Al; Aug. 3, 2006). 3 Final Act. 20.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Holmes-Kinsella and Gharabally et al
(US 2009/0183151 Al; July 16, 2009). Final Act. 13-14.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Holmes-Kinsella and Gharabally in various
combinations with other references. 4 Final Act. 14--20.
Appellants' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Barkie simply does not teach or suggest the claimed
service broker system including: "a service access module to
access data at a plurality of services using credentials stored at
the account; and a delivery module to provide the data to each
device from the plurality of devices" "associated with the
account." (claim 1 ). Barkie is simply inapposite to the claimed
subject matter.
App. Br. 14.
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner cites Barkie to
teach a provisioning server determining a user's Traveler Server
3 Although claim 23 is argued separately, we do not reach that argument as
our decision as to claim 1 is determinative. Except for our ultimate decision,
this claim is not discussed further herein.
4 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 16-20. Rather, Appellants
merely reference "the independent claims." App. Br. 20. Thus, the
rejections of these claims turns on our decision as to the rejection of claim
15. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
4
Appeal2014-007533
Application 13/284,057
from a cache database that is built dynamically from numerous
Traveler access groups, and accessing the Traveler Server to
generate and sign the configuration file for download to the
mobile device. See Examiner's Answer, page 3. However, the
provisioning server disclosed in Barkie is not disclosed to be "a
service access module to access data at a plurality of services
using credentials stored at the account; and a delivery module to
provide the data to each device from the plurality of devices,"
as required in claim 1. As noted, in Appellant's Brief, the
service broker system stands between the plurality of devices
and the plurality of services such that the devices do not
directly access the services. See Appellant's Brief, pages 10-
12. In contrast, Barkie merely discloses a provisioning server
to configure a computing device to be able to directly access the
service. See Barkie at Abstract.
Reply Br. 4.
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he combination of Barkie and Eaton fails to teach or suggest
a method performed with a service broker system including
"the service broker system, receiving an identifier of a device
descriptor selected by the user from the plurality of device
descriptors; the service broker system, accessing data
associated with the device represented by the selected device
descriptor at the account; and the service broker system,
providing the data to a new device to configure the new device
to associate with the account at the service broker system."
(Claim 8) (emphasis added).
App. Br. 15-16.
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[Gharabally, paragraph 0041] fails to teach or suggest the
subject matter for which it is cited, namely "in response to the
association request relative to the first account,
5
Appeal2014-007533
Application 13/284,057
disassociate[ing] the new device from the second account."
(Claim 15).
App. Br. 19 (first pair of square brackets added, second pair in original).
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 15 as being
obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
Appeal Brief arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants' above contentions 1 and 2, covering claims 1 and 8,
we agree. Although the Examiner states that "[ e ]very ground of rejection set
forth in the Office action dated 07/30/2013 from which the appeal is taken is
being maintained by the Examiner" (Ans. 3), the Examiner provides totally
new analysis of Barkie as support for the rejection of claims 1 and 8
(compare Ans. 3-5 with Final Act. 4--5, 8-9). The essence of Appellants'
arguments is that the Examiner's analysis in the Final Action and analysis in
the Answer are insufficient on their face. We agree as both analyses consist
of quotations from the claim and references with minimal (if any)
explanation of how the quoted portions of the references teach or render
obvious the claimed limitations. While such analyses may be adequate
when the references speak for themselves (e.g., as with claim 15, discussed
infra), we conclude that is not the case here. Instead, consistent with
Appellants' argument, there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support
the Examiner's findings with the rejection of claims 1 and 8.
6
Appeal2014-007533
Application 13/284,057
As to Appellants' above contention 3, covering claim 15, we disagree.
Gharabally, paragraph 0041, clearly states as an example that when a device
become associated with a new account then the device is disassociated from
an original account. We conclude the Examiner is correct that this
corresponds to the claimed "in response to the association request relative to
the first account, disassociate the new device from the second account."
Claim 15.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 15-20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-8, 12-14, and 21-23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-8, 12-14, and 21-23 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
( 4) Claims 15-20 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 15-20 are affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8, 12-14, and 21-23 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
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).
7
Appeal2014-007533
Application 13/284,057
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8