Ex Parte SATGUNAM

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

14097948 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/097,948 12/05/2013
25537 7590 12/03/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark SATGUNAM
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.
20131078 8826
EXAMINER
BROWN, VERNAL U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK SATGUNAM
Appeal 2018-005138
Application 14/097 ,948 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-20, 22, and 23, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Claims 8, 15, and 21 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real parties in interest identified by Appellant are Verizon and Redbox
Digital Entertainment Services, LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-005138
Application 14/097 ,948
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention relates generally to
"[remote] control [ofJ a device over a network." Spec. ,r 1. 2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitation emphasized):
1. A device, comprising:
one or more processors to:
receive a text message sent by a user device to a
centralized address accessible by the device,
the text message including:
text describing a command to be executed by
a client device, and
text describing authentication information for
authenticating the user device,
the text message being generated, by a user
interface application provided on the user device, in a
predetermined format used to distinguish between
different types of information described in the text
message,
the predetermined format distinguishing the
text describing the command and the text describing
the authentication information;
obtain identification information identifying the user
device based on the text message;
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action (mailed July 21, 2017,
"Final Act."), Appellant's Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 27, 2017, "App. Br.")
and Reply Brief (filed April 19, 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer
(mailed March 7, 2018, "Ans."), and the original Specification (filed Dec. 5,
2013, "Spec.").
2
Appeal 2018-005138
Application 14/097 ,948
determine that the client device is associated with the user
device based on the identification information;
search a data structure for a command description
matching the text describing the command,
the data structure associating the command
description with an executable command that is executable
by the client device, and
the executable command being associated with the
command described in the text message;
provide the executable command to the client device for
execution of the executable command; and
provide, to the user device and based on providing the
executable command to the client device, a particular text
message indicating a schedule associated with executing the
executable command by the client device.
App Br. 30-31 (Claim App.).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-7, 10-14, 16-17, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ward et al.
(US 2014/0120901 Al; published May 1, 2014) ("Ward").
Claims 9 and 18-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ward, in view of Elias et al. (US 2010/0031296 Al;
published Feb. 4, 2010) ("Elias").
ANALYSIS
Ward discloses an electronic device configuration ("EDC") system
resident in a programmable electronic device that receives an unstructured
text message, interprets a command based on the information contained
within the text message, and causes the electronic device to perform the
3
Appeal 2018-005138
Application 14/097 ,948
command. See Ward ,r,r 7, 9, 25, 56, 59. Appellant argues Ward merely
discloses a "history" command that can be sent to the EDC system to
retrieve a list of previously transmitted or received messages, such as the last
ten alert events, including time and/ or date stamps, and the time and/ or data
stamps for previously transmitted/received messages does not teach or
suggest the claimed schedule associated with executing the current
executable command by the electronic device. 3 See App. Br. 11-12 (citing
Ward ,r 72); see also Reply Br. 7. Appellant further argues Elias fails to
cure Ward's deficiencies. See App. Br. 28.
The Examiner finds the interpretation of the limitation "a particular
text message indicating a schedule associated with executing the executable
command by the client device," as recited in claim 1, is broader than argued
by Appellant. See Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner further finds Ward discloses
the aforementioned claim limitation. See Ans. 3--4 (citing Ward ,r 72); see
also Advisory Action mailed September 13, 2017 at 2.
We have reviewed the Examiner's findings, in light of Appellant's
arguments, and are persuaded the Examiner erred. Specifically, we agree
with Appellant that Ward's time and/or data stamps are associated with
previously transmitted/received messages, rather than the current executable
command executed by the electronic device. Thus, on this record, Ward
fails to teach "a particular text message indicating a schedule associated with
executing the executable command by the client device," as recited in claim
1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 14. Further, on this record, the
Examiner has not shown that Elias cures this deficiency of Ward.
3 Appellant's arguments raise additional issues, but we do not reach them
because the identified issues are dispositive of the appeal.
4
Appeal 2018-005138
Application 14/097 ,948
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
7, and 14 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). We also do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2---6, 9--13, 16-20, 22, and 23,
which depend from one of claims 1, 7, and 14.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 10-14, 16-17, 20,
22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 18-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
5