Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2021

2020002507 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2021)

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.
15/095,904 04/11/2016 Reinhard KLEMM 648.0302 9050
93379 7590 07/02/2021
Setter Roche LLP
1860 Blake Street
Suite 100
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
SCHMIDT, KARI L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2021 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):
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
sarah@setterroche.com
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REINHARD KLEMM, PARAMESHWARAN KRISHNAN, and
NAVJOT SINGH
Appeal 2020-002507
Application 15/095,904
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant,
and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act.
1; Appeal Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya Inc. Appeal
Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Apr. 11, 2016;
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Oct. 8, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Appeal 2020-002507
Application 15/095,904
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally relates
to third party control of a user device. See Spec. ¶¶ 3. More specifically,
Appellant’s claims are directed to servers and methods for allowing limited
third party control over a user device. In the method, a third party control
server receives an indication that a user device is in a predetermined area
and transmits authentication data to the user device, wherein the
authentication data authenticates the third party to the user device. After the
authentication, the control server receives a request from the user device for
command data which when executed on the user device allows the third
party limited control over the user device while the user device remains in
the predetermined area. See Spec. ¶¶ 3, 27, 28; Abstract. Claim 1 (directed
to a method), 10 (directed to a server), and 19 (directed to a method) are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
responsive to receiving, by a control server of a third party,
an indication that a user device is in a predetermined area:
transmitting, by the control server, authentication
data to the user device, the authentication data configured to
authenticate the third party to the user device, the third party
being associated with the predetermined area;
after transmitting the authentication data,
receiving, by the control server, a request from the user device
for command data, the command data configured to be executed
on the user device to prepare the user device to receive
commands that provide the third party with a limited control over
the user device while the user device remains in the

Br.”), filed Feb. 10, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Apr. 11, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
Dec. 9, 2019.
Appeal 2020-002507
Application 15/095,904
3
predetermined area, wherein the request indicates that the user
device used the authentication data to validate the control server
for control over user device;
in response to the request, transmitting, by the
control server, the command data to the user device, wherein the
user device executes the command data; and
after transmitting the command data, transmitting,
by the control server to the user device, control data comprising
at least one command to be executed on the user device.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bhatia US 2010/0229217 A1 Sept. 9, 2010
Huotari et al.
(“Huotari”)
US 2010/0311336 A1 Dec. 9, 2010
Marshall et al.
(“Marshall”)
US 2014/0310771 A1 Oct. 16, 2014
Gupta et al. (“Gupta”) US 2014/0331272 A1 Nov. 6, 2014
Day II et al.
(“Day II”)
US 2015/0180746 A1 June 25, 2015

REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9–12, 14, 15, and 18–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta and Huotari. See
Final Act. 3–16.

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013),
this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-002507
Application 15/095,904
4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Gupta, Huotari, and Bhatia. See Final Act. 17.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Gupta, Huotari, and Day II. See Final Act. 18–19.
4. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Gupta, Huotari, Day II, and Marshall. See Final
Act. 19–21.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9–12,
14, 15, and 18–20
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claims 10 and 19, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and
20) as being obvious over Gupta and Huotari. See Final Act. 3–8; Ans. 3–7.
The Examiner relies on Huotari to teach the disputed features of “after
transmitting the authentication data, receiving, by the control server, a
request from the user device for command data” and “in response to the
request, transmitting, by the control server, the command data to the user
device.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.)(claim 1); see Final Act. 5–7.
Appellant contends that Gupta and Huotari do not teach the disputed
limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2–3. Specifically,
Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner-cited paragraphs of Huotari
do not teach a control server receiving a request for command data from a
user device after authentication—the Examiner asserts that the “request from
the user device for command data” equates to Huotari’s “wakeup interrupt to
wake up a device behavior application.” Huotari, however, shows “the
signal is transferred from POI 109 to user equipment 101 (see ¶ 0040). The
Appeal 2020-002507
Application 15/095,904
5
signal does not come from user equipment 101.” Appeal Br. 7–8; see Reply
Br. 2–3. Appellant further contends that:
The Examiner’s Answer further seems to suggest that,
since a POI action is executed after verification, action content is
also requested and downloaded to the UE after verification (see
Id.). However, as previously mentioned, the action information,
which seems to be used interchangeably with action content in
Huotari, can be included in the signal sent from the POI (see
Huotari, ¶ 0040). Thus, the only explicit disclosure of Huotari
regarding timing of action content receipt is that the action
content can be received before verification.
(Reply Br. 2).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Huotari
(in combination with Gupta) do not teach or suggest the disputed request for
command data, or the responsive transmission of such command data—
“after transmitting the authentication data, receiving, by the control server, a
request from the user device for command data” and “in response to the
request, transmitting, by the control server, the command data to the user
device.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.)(claim 1); see Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply
Br. 2–3. Although the Examiner takes the position that Gupta also teaches
receiving a request (for command data) and transmitting command data (see
Final Act. 4–5 (citing Gupta ¶¶ 57, 61); Ans. 5 (citing Gupta ¶ 57)), the
Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Gupta’s control signals for
establishing communication channels teach the recited request of claim 1.
The Examiner relies on Huotari for these features. As pointed out by
Appellant, the Examiner-cited portions of Huotari do not explicitly teach
either the request for command data or the responsive transmission of
control data, and the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Huotari
teaches these features. See Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2–3.
Appeal 2020-002507
Application 15/095,904
6
The cited portions of Huotari (¶¶ 40, 46) disclose receiving action
information from a POI (point of interest) that broadcasts a signal to UEs
(user equipment). A runtime module in a UE receives the signal (which
includes POI identification information and POI action information). In
particular, the signal includes “a wakeup interrupt to wakeup a device
behavior application” of the UE (Huotari ¶ 40). The UE runtime module
processes the signal, activates the UE behavior application, and then
contacts a location based control platform to validate (verify) the POI signal
After validation, the POI action is executed. At best, Huotari teaches a POI
sending action information (e.g., command data) when a UE (mobile device)
is within a predetermined range of the POI. See Huotari ¶ 46. The
Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Huotari’s verification of the POI
signal equates to the recited request, nor how Huotari at least suggests
responsively transmitting command data. Thus, the Examiner does not
sufficiently explain how Huotari (in combination with Gupta) teaches or
suggests the disputed features of claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Gupta and Huotari
renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 18 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9–12, 14, 19–22, 25,
and 26 depend from and stand with claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. Thus,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6,
9–12, 14, 15, and 18–20.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, and 17
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 4 and 13 as being obvious
over Gupta, Huotari, and Bhatia. See Final Act. 17. The Examiner also
Appeal 2020-002507
Application 15/095,904
7
rejects claims 7 and 16 as being obvious over Gupta, Huotari, and Day II.
See Final Act. 18–19. The Examiner further rejects dependent claims 8 and
17 over Gupta, Huotari, Day II, and Marshall. See Final Act. 19–21. The
Examiner does not suggest, and we do not find, that the additionally cited
references (Bhatia, Day II, or Marshall) cure the deficiencies of Huotari in
combination with Gupta (supra). Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, and 17 for the
same reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–20.

Appeal 2020-002507
Application 15/095,904
8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6, 9–
12, 14, 15,
18–20
103 Gupta, Huotari 1–3, 5, 6, 9–
12, 14, 15,
18–20
4, 13 103 Gupta, Huotari,
Bhatia
4, 13
7, 16 103 Gupta, Huotari,
Day II
7, 16
8, 17 103 Gupta, Huotari,
Day II, Marshall
8, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED