Ex Parte Zhong

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2018

14288870 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/288,870 05/28/2014
97698 7590 09/24/2018
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zhen Zhong
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.
4437-12400 4314
EXAMINER
BARON,HENRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2018 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):
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHEN ZHONG 1
Appeal2018-001584
Application 14/288,870
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 12-30 and 32. 2 Claims 1-11
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Huawei Device Co.,
Ltd., a subsidiary ofHuawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Br. 3.
2 The Examiner does not specifically reject claim 31. Accordingly, claim 31
is not before us on appeal.
Appeal2018-001584
Application 14/288,870
Appellant's Invention
The invention generally relates to managing a broadband mobile
device, such as a 3G data card or a 3G USB modem, by a host device, such
as a PC, mobile phone, PDA, or tablet computer. See Spec. ,r,r 3--4, 35.
Specifically, a collaboration software program installed on the host device
calls an application programming interface (API) of a web server integrated
into the broadband mobile device for obtaining service information of a
mobile broadband service. See id. ,r,r 31, 35-36. If, according to the service
information, a function of the host device is necessary for implementing the
service, the program calls an operating system (OS) API of the host. See id.
,r,r 3 9--41.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
12. A method for implementing a service for a wireless device
coupled with a terminal device, comprising:
obtaining, by the terminal device via a collaboration
software executed by the terminal device, service information of
the wireless device by calling an application programming
interface (API) of a web server of the wireless device, wherein
the web server is integrated into the wireless device; and
using, by the terminal device, a corresponding function of
the terminal device in accordance with the service information to
implement the service for the wireless device by calling an
operating system (OS) API of the terminal device.
2
Appeal2018-001584
Application 14/288,870
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 12, 16, 19, 22, 26, and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kokkinen (US 2006/0242248
Al; Oct. 26, 2006), Klassen et al. (US 2006/0073785 Al; Apr. 6, 2006)
("Klassen"), and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Kokkinen, Klassen, AAP A, and Rezvani et al. (US
2004/0098515 Al; May 20, 2004)("Rezvani").
The Examiner rejects claims 14, 17, 18, 21, 24, and 27-30 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kokkinen, Klassen, AAPA,
and Khachaturov et al. (US 2010/0295676 Al; Nov. 25,
201 O)("Khachaturov").
The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Kokkinen, Klassen, AAP A, and Feher (US
2007 /0032220 Al; Feb. 8, 2007).
The Examiner rejects claims 19, 20, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Kokkinen, Klassen, AAP A, Feher, and
Khachaturov.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Kokkinen, Klassen, and
AAP A discloses all the limitations of independent claim 12. Final Act. 2-3.
In particular, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to modify the
combination of Kokkinen and Klassen, in view of AAP A, such that "the web
server is integrated into the wireless device," as in claim 12. Id. at 3.
Appellant contends the Examiner's modification of the combination of
Kokkinen and Klassen would have rendered either Kokkinen or Klassen
3
Appeal2018-001584
Application 14/288,870
unsatisfactory for their respective intended purposes. Br. 7-10. We are
persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
Kokkinen describes a user connecting to a web server 24 from a
communication device 40 (such as a PC) or a mobile station 10, where the
web server hosts web pages that display a list of services available via short
message service (SMS) or multimedia message service (MMS). Kokkinen,
,r 29. After the user provides information about the mobile station, selects
from the list of available services, and indicates values for parameters of the
services, the web server creates a user interface application specifically
tailored to the user's selection and provides the code for the user interface
application such that it can be transferred to the mobile station. Id.
The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
integrated a web server into Kokkinen's wireless device. Final Act. 3. We
disagree, because this integration would render Kokkinen unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose. That is, if web server 24 were integrated into mobile
station 10, the web server would not be able to function as a third party host
for web pages displaying available SMS or MMS services (see Kokkinen,
,r 29) because the web server would be in the domain of the user.
Accordingly, to the extent the Examiner proposes modifying Kokkinen to
transpose the web server 24 into mobile station 10, the Examiner has
provided no rational underpinning for the Examiner's combination.
Klassen describes "a web page-based mobile device diagnosis, test,
application deployment and update solution." Klassen, ,r 14. In a particular
embodiment, "mobile devices be diagnosed and tested and applications
therefor deployed or updated to the device via a web page-based loader for a
user's personal computer (PC)." Id. ,r 15. As shown in Klassen's Figure 1,
web server 102 is connected to PC 108 through a wide area network (WAN)
4
Appeal2018-001584
Application 14/288,870
106, while mobile device 110 is coupled to PC 108 via coupling 112. Id.
,r,r 23-24. The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
integrated a web server into Klassen's mobile device. Final Act. 3. We
disagree, because this integration would render Klassen unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose. That is, if web server 102 were integrated into mobile
device 110, the web server would not be able to serve application updates to
the mobile device via PC 108 as intended (see Klassen, ,r,r 36-39).
Accordingly, there is no rational underpinning to the Examiner's
combination to the extent the Examiner proposes modifying Klassen to
transpose the web server 102 into mobile device 110.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 12, independent claims 22 and 32,
which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 13-21 and
23-30 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12-30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 12-30 and 32.
REVERSED
5