Ex Parte Stewart et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2017

13450625 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2017)

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.
13/450,625 04/19/2012 Brett B. Stewart 6062-00501 8858
35690 7590 07/24/2017
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MINH CHAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2017 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg @ gmail .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRETT B. STEWART, DIRK D. HEINEN, and
MARGO A. BAXTER
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—47, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction over these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Acumera, Inc. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellants, “[t]he present invention generally relates to
software application development and deployment on remote devices, and
more specifically to systems and methods for configuring or managing
gateway devices at various locations.” (Spec. 12.)
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 14, 21, 35, and 44 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable memory
medium comprising program instructions for automatically
configuring a gateway device, wherein the program instructions
are executable to:
detect a gateway device that is deployed at a location;
receive an indication of a plurality of premise devices
coupled to the gateway device at the location;
automatically determine a plurality of applications to be
deployed on the gateway device, wherein said automatically
determining is based on the indication of the plurality of
premise devices coupled to the gateway device;
provide the plurality of applications to the gateway
device over a wide area network, wherein the gateway device is
configured to execute the plurality of applications, wherein at
least one of the applications is executable by the gateway
device to manage a first premise device of the plurality of
devices at the location.
2
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
Reference
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ansari et al. (“Ansari”) US 2010/0202450 A1 Aug. 12, 2010
Rejection
Claims 1—47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Ansari. (Final Act. 2—15.)
Issues
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ansari discloses
“receive an indication of a plurality of premise devices coupled to the
gateway device at the location,” as recited in independent claim 1, and that
the gateway “detect[s] the plurality of premise devices,” as recited in
independent claim 44.
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ansari discloses
“automatically determine a plurality of applications to be deployed on the
gateway device, wherein said automatically determining is based on the
indication of the plurality of premise devices coupled to the gateway
device,” and “provide the plurality of applications to the gateway device
over a wide area network, wherein the gateway device is configured to
execute the plurality of applications, wherein at least one of the applications
is executable by the gateway device to manage a first premise device of the
plurality of devices at the location,” as recited in independent claim 1.
(3) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ansari discloses
“identification information of each premise device coupled to the gateway
device,” as recited in dependent claims 2, 15, 24, and 38, and further
3
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
wherein the “identification information” “identifies a type of each premise
device,” as recited in dependent claims 3 and 25, and “identifies a model of
each premise device,” as recited in dependent claims 4 and 26.
(4) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ansari discloses
“wherein the identification information identifies a serial number of each
premise device,” as recited in claims dependent 5 and 27.
(5) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ansari discloses
“wherein said automatically determining the plurality of applications
comprises determining the at least one of the applications for managing the
first premise device coupled to the gateway device using the identification
information of the first premise device,” as recited in dependent claim 6 and
commensurately recited in dependent claims 16 and 28, and “wherein said
automatically determining the plurality of applications comprises
determining one or more applications associated with each identification
information,” as recited in dependent claim 7.
(6) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ansari discloses
“automatically install the at least a subset of the applications on the server,”
as recited in dependent claim 8 and commensurately recited in dependent
claims 17, 29, and 39.
(7) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ansari discloses
“wherein the gateway device is configured to execute a first application of
the at least one of the applications to control the first premise device at the
location,” as recited in dependent claim 10.
(8) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ansari discloses
“wherein the gateway device is a merchant gateway device of a merchant
located at a merchant location,” as recited in dependent claims 11, 18, 30,
4
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
and 40, and “wherein the merchant is a convenience store,” as recited in
claims dependent 12, 19, and 31.
(9) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ansari discloses
“wherein said determining the plurality of premise devices comprises
receiving user input identifying a premise device of the plurality of premise
devices,” as recited in dependent claims 23 and 37.
(10) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ansari discloses “upon
establishing a network connection to the wide area network, automatically
provide a message to the server,” as recited in dependent claims 33 and 42,
and, further, “wherein the message comprises identification information of
the gateway device,” as recited in dependent claims 34 and 43.
ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1—4, 6, 7, 10—16, 18—26, 28, 30—38, and 40—47
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6, 7, 10—
16, 18—26, 28, 30-38, and 40-47 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the
Examiner has erred. As to those claims, we disagree with Appellants’
conclusions and we adopt as our own the findings and conclusions reached
by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for emphasis.2
2 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this
Decision. Arguments Appellants did not make are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
1. Indicating and Detecting Premises Devices
(Independent Claims 1 and 44)
Appellants argue Ansari fails to disclose that a gateway provides an
“indication of a plurality of premise devices coupled to the gateway device,”
as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 8—9.) Appellants further argue:
[I]n Ansari everything is driven by subscriptions of the user, not
the devices. Ansari nowhere indicates that the endpoint devices
are detected and applications are selected and downloaded to
manage those detected devices. Instead, Ansari teaches that the
gateway device is used to manage and support services
subscribed to by the user. These are distinct models of
operation. Thus, Ansari’s subscription-centric method does not
teach or suggest the device-centric features of the claims, as
recited.
(App. Br. 11 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 3—5.) Appellants
similarly argue “Ansari does not disclose that the gateway device performs
detecting the plurality of premise devices and providing an indication of
those devices,” as recited in independent claim 44. (App. Br. 11; see also
Reply Br. 3—5.)
First, with regard to the claimed “indication,” the Examiner
concludes, and we agree, the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term
includes “any information about premise devices (or endpoint devices at the
user premise[s]), for example anything which indicates the existence of
them.” (Ans. 2.)
Second, we disagree with Appellants’ narrow reading of Ansari.
Appellants’ arguments are premised primarily on challenging the content of
specific paragraphs of Ansari while disregarding additional disclosures cited
by the Examiner. Although Ansari discloses subscription-based updating of
a gateway device and associated endpoint devices (e.g., Ansari 1114),
6
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
Appellants’ arguments overlook Ansari’s additional disclosures of a gateway
device providing to a service management center (server) an indication of
the existence of associated premise (“endpoint”) devices. (E.g., Ansari H
22, 171, 191, 192, Fig. 8D; Final Act. 3.) In particular, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, Ansari discloses “a gateway device for operation at a user
premises provides and manages services of one or more endpoint devices
associated with the gateway device.” (Final Act. 14 (citing Ansari 122).)
The Examiner further finds the gateway device “detects! new devices and
provided! IP addresses dynamically or statically.” (Ans. 3 (citing Ansari
1122, 75, 104, 116, 171).) In addition to automatically detecting endpoint
devices (e.g., Ansari 1104), Ansari’s gateway, “as part of the gateway device
registration process, . . . may be instructed to query for its version status,”
which process may include providing “the software/firmware details of the
particular gateway device 10 and associated endpoint devices/'’ (Ansari
1191 (emphases added).) “This information from the gateway device 10 is
forwarded to the connection manager server 60 and sent to the upgrade
manager to determine whether the gateway device 10 is performing with the
latest software/firmware versions and proper upgrades.” (Id. (emphasis
added).)
We conclude that Ansari’s disclosure of a gateway providing
“software/firmware details of. . . associated endpoint devices” is within the
broad but reasonable scope of “providing an indication” of endpoint devices,
as recited in claims 1 and 44. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s finding that Ansari discloses “receive an indication of a plurality
of premise devices coupled to the gateway device at the location,” as recited
in independent claim 1. We are also not persuaded of error in the
7
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
Examiner’s finding Ansari discloses “detecting] the plurality of premise
devices collocated with the gateway device,” as recited in independent claim
44. (E.g., Ans. 6—7 (citing Ansari || 104, 116, 171, 191).)
2. Downloading Applications (Independent Claim 1)
Appellants also argue, further with regard to claim 1, that “Ansari
only discusses that the gateway device is capable of performing automatic
configuration for some devices themselves, and nowhere discusses
downloading applications to the gateway device based on reported devices
detected at the location of the gateway device.” (App. Br. 9 (emphasis
added); see also Reply Br. 4.) We disagree. As noted above, Ansari
discloses that after the gateway has provided, as part of its device
registration process, its own software/firmware details and those of the
“associated endpoint devices,” the upgrade manager determines whether any
updates are needed by the gateway; if so, “[a]ny upgrades deemed necessary
or available for the gateway device 10 are forwarded back to the control
message router 62 and sent back to the gateway device 10 where the updates
are installed.” (Ansari 1191.) Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s finding that Ansari discloses “automatically determine a
plurality of applications to be deployed on the gateway device, wherein said
automatically determining is based on the indication of the plurality of
premise devices coupled to the gateway device,” as recited in independent
claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claims 1 and 44, as
well as claims 13, 14, 20-22, 32, 35, 36, 41, and 45^47, which Appellants
8
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
do not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.
3. Identification Information (Claims 2—4, 15, 24—26, and 38)
Dependent claims 2, 15, 24, and 38 recite “the indication of the
plurality of premise devices comprises identification information of each
premise device coupled to the gateway device.” (App. Br. 20, 22, 24, 26
(emphasis added).) Appellants argue Ansari fails to disclose this feature.
(App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 6.) We disagree. As noted above, Ansari
not only discloses the gateway providing an “indication” of associated
endpoint devices, but it also discloses the gateway provides identifying
information for those devices as part of that indication. For example, Ansari
discloses the gateway devices “are capable of automatically discovering and
configuring the gateway device compatible devices,” wherein the automatic
discovery includes “the specific device’s current firmware or software or
like version.” (Ansari 1171 (emphases added).) Ansari further discloses
“[t]he gateway device 10 in one embodiment also may keep a record or table
of configuration information, for example, for those devices configured
automatically.” {Id.) Ansari further discloses the gateway forwards to the
connection manager server “the software/firmware details of the . . .
associated endpoint devices” as part of the “gateway device registration
process.” {Id. 1191 (emphasis added).) A particular device’s software or
firmware details are identifying information for that device. We are,
therefore, not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 15,
24, and 38.
Dependent claims 3 and 25 further recite that the “identification
information identifies a type of each premise device.” (App. Br. 20, 24
9
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
(emphasis added).) Similarly, dependent claims 4 and 26 further recite
“wherein the identification information identifies a model of each premise
device.” {Id. (emphasis added).) As noted, Ansari discloses the gateway
automatically discovers and configures different types of endpoint devices
(e.g., Ansari 1171, “The provisioning system or like functionality 74 may
provision how many endpoints and the types of devices that can be self-
provisioned by the user.”), and keeps track of each specific device’s current
firmware. (Id.) Ansari also discloses “[t]he robustness of the gateway
device, coupled with the central management capabilities of the service
management center, allow the system to register, configure, provision, and
enable inter-communication among, a wide variety of endpoint devices, such
as TV, cell phone, radios, PC, and digital picture frames.” (Id. 131
(emphasis added).) Ansari also discloses a subscription manager that
maintains “subscriber information/data” including “the model number, the
JID/BID or the like to be able to create and distribute the right package of
meta information and to identify the firmware ID, configuration and
configuration data to the gateway device.” (Ansari 1162 (emphases
added).) One of ordinary skill reading the disclosure of Ansari would
understand that a model number and firmware version for a device will
identify the type of that device. (See, e.g., Ansari 1162.) We are, therefore,
not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 25, and 26.
10
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
4. Determining Applications Based on Identification of Premise
Device (Claims 6, 7, 16, 28)
Dependent claims 6, 16, and 28 recite “determining the at least one of
the applications for managing the first premise device coupled to the
gateway device using the identification information of the first premise
device.” (App. Br. 21—24.) Dependent claim 7 similarly recites “wherein
said automatically determining the plurality of applications comprises
determining one or more applications associated with each identification
information.” (App. Br. 21.)
The Examiner finds these claims are anticipated by “Ansari’s features
of determining service updates and/or indicating the currently needed
application services for the gateway devices based the detected/determined
endpoint device (which includes the type and IP address of the endpoint
device).” (Ans. 11—13 (citing Ansari || 104, 114—117, 171, 175, 185—189).)
We agree the Examiner’s findings are supported by the cited teachings. We
further note Ansari’s disclosure in paragraph 191 also supports the
Examiner’s findings, as Ansari discloses therein the gateway device
obtaining “upgrades deemed necessary ... for the gateway device” based on
the gateway’s providing to the server its own software/firmware details as
well as those of “associated endpoint devices.” (Ansari 1191.) We,
therefore, are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6,
7, 16, and 28.
5. Gateway Device Configured to Execute Application to Control
Premise Device (Claim 10)
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the gateway device is configured
to execute a first application of the at least one of the applications to control
the first premise device at the location.” (App. Br. 21.) The Examiner finds,
11
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
and we agree, Ansari discloses this limitation by disclosing “[t]he gateway
device 10 can install the configuration data or software, to enable that device
10 to deliver the server functionality for the application service . . . (Ans.
16 (citing Ansari 1114, 171).) The Examiner’s findings are further
supported by additional disclosures in Ansari that confirm the gateway
manages the various endpoint devices (e.g., Ansari || 46, 55), and does so
by operating software that is obtained from the server in response to the
gateway’s providing its own software details as well as the firmware details
of associated endpoint devices, as noted above. (E.g., Ansari 1191.) We,
therefore, are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10
as anticipated by Ansari.
6. Merchant Location (Claims 11, 12, 18, 19, 30, 31, and 40)
Dependent claims 11, 18, 30, and 40 recite “wherein the gateway
device is a merchant gateway device of a merchant located at a merchant
location.” (App. Br. 21—23, 25, 26.) Similarly, dependent claims 12, 19,
and 31 further recite “wherein the merchant is a convenience store.” (App.
Br. 22, 23, 25.) The Examiner finds Ansari discloses the gateway device “is
a device for managing [a] business digital network including the endpoint
devices in the premises.” (Ans. 17 (emphasis added).)
We agree Ansari broadly discloses the gateway device may be located
at a “business.” (Ansari || 46, 171.) Appellants do not argue that a
merchant or a convenience store, as claimed, differ in any material way from
any type of “business,” as broadly disclosed in Ansari. Rather, Appellants
premise their argument on an incorrect reading of Ansari as disclosing
deployment of gateways only in “homes.” (App. Br. 16.)
12
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
We find the ordinarily skilled artisan would understand Ansari’s
disclosure of deployment of gateway devices at “business[es]” includes
deployment at any type of business, including “merchant[s]” and
“convenience store[s].” We, therefore, are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, 18, 19, 30, 31, and 40 as anticipated
by Ansari.
7. User Input Identifying a Premise Device (Claims 23 and 27)
Claim 23 recites “wherein said determining the plurality of premise
devices comprises receiving user input identifying a premise device of the
plurality of premise devices.” (App. Br. 24.) The Examiner finds this
limitation is disclosed by Ansari’s recitation “[t]he provisioning system or
like functionality 74 may provision how many endpoints and the types of
devices that can be self-provisioned by the user . . . .” (Ans. 18 (emphasis
omitted) (citing Ansari 1171).) This disclosure is part of Ansari’s
disclosure of endpoint devices being provisioned “on a particular multi­
services gateway device 10.” (Ansari 1171.) Self-pro visioning by a user is
disclosed by Ansari as an alternative to the gateway “automatically
discovering” endpoint devices. {Id.) We agree Ansari’s disclosure of a user
“self-provision[ing]” endpoint devices discloses the claimed user input
identifying a premise device. We, therefore, are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 (or claim 27, argued collectively with
claim 23) as anticipated by Ansari.
8. Automatically Providing a Message to the Server (Claims 33,
34, 42, and 43)
Claim 33 recites “upon establishing a network connection to the wide
area network, automatically provide a message to the server.” (App. Br. 25.)
13
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
Claim 343 recites “wherein the message comprises identification information
of the gateway device.” {Id.) Claims 42 and 43 contain recitations
commensurate to claims 33 and 34, respectively. (App. Br. 26—27.) The
Examiner finds these claims are disclosed by Ansari’s disclosure of a
gateway device sending requests to the service management center, which
requests include “the gateway device identifier information.” (Ans. 20
(emphasis omitted) (citing Ansari || 114, 127).)
Appellants argue the Examiner’s findings are in error, because Ansari
does not disclose these messages being provided “upon establishing a
network connection to the wide area network.” (Reply Br. 9—10.) We
disagree. Ansari discloses, in Figures 6A—6C, “an initialization technique
200 for establishing a gateway device’s connection to and enabling
communication with the service management center network 50, and further
the provisioning and management and maintenance of services.” (Ansari
1123.) As illustrated in Figure 6A, after the gateway establishes a WAN
connection with the service center, the gateway sends an “Authentication
Request.” {Id., Fig. 6A, 216, 218, 220.) Ansari discloses the “authentication
request” includes “an authentication digest using a hardware identifier, an
activation code, and a subscriber ID . . . .” (Id. 1126 (emphasis added).)
This request is a “message” that comprises “identification information of the
gateway device.” In addition, once the gateway is authenticated, it sends
another request “to the subscription manager functionality” of the “service
3 We assume, for purposes of this opinion, that the recitation in claim 34 of
“[t]he non-transitory computer readable memory medium of claim 34” (App.
Br. 25 (emphasis added)) is in error, and claim 34 is intended to depend
from claim 33. In the event of further prosecution, appropriate correction is
suggested.
14
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
management center network,” and this request “includes, for example, the
gateway device identifier information.” (Id. 1127.) This request is also a
“message” that comprises “identification information of the gateway
device.” Both requests are provided automatically to the server by the
gateway after the gateway establishes a network connection to the wide area
network.
We, therefore, are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 33, 34, 42, and 43 as anticipated by Ansari.
B. Claims 5, 8, 9, 17, 29, 27, and 39
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and additionally recites “wherein the
identification information identifies a serial number of each premise
device.” (App. Br. 20 (emphasis added).) Claim 27 depends from claim 24,
and contains the same limitation. (Id. at 24.) We agree with Appellants that
the Examiner’s findings do not support an anticipation rejection of claims 5
and 27. The Examiner finds “Ansari’s features of a software version (or
version number) is considered as a serial number.” (Ans. 10.) We agree
with Appellants that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not equate a serial
number, as recited in the claims, with a software version, as disclosed by
Ansari. Whereas a serial number is unique to one particular device (and is
referenced in this manner in Appellants’ Specification as a “unique
identifier” (| 207)), multiple devices of the same type may employ the same
software version. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and
27 as anticipated by Ansari.
We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings do not
support an anticipation rejection of dependent claims 8, 9, 17, 29, and 39 at
least because the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in Ansari of
15
Appeal 2016-008538
Application 13/450,625
“wherein the program instructions are further executable to: automatically
install the at least a subset of the applications on the server,” as recited in
these claims. (App. Br. 21, 23, 24, 27 (emphases added).) Rather, the
Examiner’s findings support only Ansari’s disclosure of “installing the
particular application service (or application services) on the gateway
device.” (Ans. 14 (emphasis added).) Disclosing automatically installing
applications on the gateway does not also disclose automatically installing
applications on the server, as recited in these claims. For example,
applications may be uploaded manually to the server for subsequent
automatic download to a gateway device. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 17, 29, and 39 as anticipated by Ansari.
DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, 10-
16, 18—26, 28, 30-38, and 40-47 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 5, 8, 9, 17, 27,
29, and 39 is reversed.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16