VascoDe Technologies Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 24, 2020

2019005030 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2020)

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.
14/022,774 09/10/2013 Dorron Mottes VASC P0156 6272
122066 7590 11/24/2020
M&B IP Analysts, LLC
500 Headquarters Plaza
Morristown, NJ 07960-7070
EXAMINER
SAMS, MATTHEW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
michael.benshimon@gmail.com
pair@mb-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte DORRON MOTTES,
GIL ZAIDMAN, and ARNON YAAR1
_____________

Appeal 2019-005030
Application 14/022,774
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, B. WILLIAM BAUMEISTER, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 20–23, and
25. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Vascode Technologies Ltd.,
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005030
Application 14/022,774

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system and method for transliteration of
a textual message. See Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the invention.
1. A computerized method of transliteration of a textual
message, comprising:
receiving, from a first network texting element, the
textual message sent from a first mobile device and destined to
a second mobile device, wherein the textual message comprises
a first character set;
determining if the first character set is supported by the
second mobile device,
wherein determining if the first character set is supported
by the second mobile device includes sending, to the second
mobile device, a textual message requesting a response,
wherein whether the first character set is supported by the
second mobile device is determined based on a character set
used by the response;
determining a second character set supported by the
second mobile device when the first character set is not
supported by the second mobile device, wherein the
determination is made by checking a database containing
information related to supported character sets of mobile
devices;
transliterating the textual message to the second character
set; and
sending the transliterated textual message to a second
network texting element.

Appeal 2019-005030
Application 14/022,774

3

PRIOR ART
Name2 Reference Date
Ravindra US 2006/0079281 A1 Apr. 13, 2006
Chalabi US 2011/0137635 A1 June 9, 2011
Abdel-Kader US 2012/0271619 A1 Oct. 25, 2012

REJECTIONS3 AT ISSUE4
1. Claims 1, 6–9, 11–13, 16, 17, 20–23, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ravindra and Abdel-Kader. Final
Act. 3–13.
2. Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Ravindra, Abdel-Kader, and Chalabi. Final Act. 13–14.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 3, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17,
20–23, and 25 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We
have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
3 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
provisions. Final Act 2.
4 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
February 1, 2019, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 13, 2019, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed July 5, 2018, the Examiner’s
Answer mailed April 18, 2019, and the Specification (“Spec.”) filed
September 10, 2013.
Appeal 2019-005030
Application 14/022,774

4

§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We provide the following explanation to highlight and
address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We
consider Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief and
the Reply Brief.
CLAIMS 1, 6–9, 11–13, 16, 17, 20–23, AND 25:
OBVIOUSNESS OVER RAVINDRA AND ABDEL-KADER.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
determining if the first character set is supported by the second
mobile device, wherein determining if the first character set is
supported by the second mobile device includes sending, to the
second mobile device, a textual message requesting a response,
wherein whether the first character set is supported by the
second mobile device is determined based on a character set
used by the response.
The Examiner finds this limitation is not taught by Ravindra, but is
taught by Abdel-Kader.5 Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Abdel-Kader
teaches whether the first character set is supported by the second mobile
device is determined based on a character set used by the response. Id. at 4–
5 (citing Abdel-Kader, Figure 3) (§ 24: wherein recipient device 305
transmits to server 310 information including languages it supports) (§ 25:
wherein the server 310 updates the information regarding languages received
from recipient). The Examiner finds Abdel-Kader sends a response with a
list of languages supported by the recipient device which inherently must
comprise a supported character because otherwise there would be no
message. Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds where the responding

5 The Examiner variously refers to this reference as “Abdel” or “Abdel-
Kader.” See Final Act. 4–5.
Appeal 2019-005030
Application 14/022,774

5

device supports only a single language, the response message has to be the
supported language and, therefore, the supported character set of the second
mobile device is determined by the character set used in the response. Id.
Appellant contends Abdel-Kader does not disclose, teach, or suggest
consideration of a character set used by the transmitted information in
determining the supported language. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues Abdel-
Kader discloses the transmitted information includes a list of languages
corresponding to the character sets installed on the recipient device, a device
identifier, or both. Id. (quoting Abdel-Kater, ¶ 24) (“Recipient portable
electronic device 305 . . . transmits to server 310, via link 301, information
identifying itself and information related to the languages it supports.”).
Appellant argues the list of languages serves as an explicit indication of the
character set supported by the recipient device and in the case of the device
identifier, the device identifier is used to identify an appropriate list of
languages (i.e., character sets). Id. at 9.
The Examiner subsequently reasons that because Abdel-Kader states,
“one or more languages,” thus, it is “the Examiner’s view,” that when only a
single language is supported, the recipient device can only formulate and
transmit a message in the supported character set and necessarily the
supported character set must be determined from the message, as claimed.
Ans. 3.
Appellant replies that even in the Examiner’s scenario, Abdel-Kater
does not teach or suggest the character set is determined based on the
character set used by the response, as claimed. Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds, and Appellant agrees, Abdel-Kader discloses
“[r]ecipient portable electronic device . . . is, for example, a portable
Appeal 2019-005030
Application 14/022,774

6

electronic device 100, and transmits to server 310, via link 301, information
identifying itself and information related to the languages it supports.” Final
Act. 5; Appeal Br. 8. We find the Examiner has not established that
communication between a mobile device and a server utilizes any character
set recognized by humans, but rather, such communication occurs via
packets of digital bits. Thus, we find the Examiner has not established
Abdel-Kader teaches determining whether a first character set is supported
based on the character set used in a response.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claims 1, 6–9, 11–13, 16, 17, 20–23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Ravindra and Abdel-Kader.

CLAIMS 3 AND 15: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
RAVINDRA, ABDEL-KADER, AND CHALABI.
Appellant contends Chalabi fails to teach the limitation disputed
above. Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner does not apply Chalabi to teach the disputed limitation.
Ans. 7.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ravindra, Abdel-Kader, and
Chalabi.

Appeal 2019-005030
Application 14/022,774

7

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–9, 11–
13, 16, 17,
20–23, 25
103 Ravindra, Abdel-
Kader
1, 6–9, 11–
13, 16, 17,
20–23, 25
3, 15 103 Ravindra, Abdel-
Kader, Chalabi
3, 15
Overall 1, 3, 6–9,
11–13, 15–
17, 20–23,
25

REVERSED