Baum, Marc et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 17, 20202019004573 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/335,279 12/22/2011 Marc Baum 102005.024027 2494 71581 7590 12/17/2020 BakerHostetler / Comcast Cira Centre, 12th Floor 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891 EXAMINER WALSH, JOHN B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2020 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARC BAUM, PAUL J. DAWES, MIKE KINNEY, REZA RAJI, DAVID SWENSON, and AARON WOOD ___________ Appeal 2019-004573 Application 13/335,279 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, SCOTT B. HOWARD and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 74–77, 79, 81, 83–85, 93–95, 97–101 and 103–105. We have jurisdiction over the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is iControl Networks, Inc.. See Appeal Br. 1. Our reference to page numbers is based upon the cover page of the Appeal Brief being page 1, as the Appeal Brief does not contain any page numbers. Appeal 2019-004573 Application 13/335,279 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Embodiments of Appellant’s invention relate to “a mobile communication system which allows mobile vehicles to communicate with neighboring vehicles and roadside communication networks.” Spec. ¶ 3. Exemplary Claim 74. A method comprising: sending, to a controller device of a security system, enrollment data associated with a gateway device, wherein configuration of the controller device, based on the enrollment data, enables communication, via the gateway device, between the security system and a remote device; based on the configuration of the controller device, receiving, by the gateway device and from the controller device, security data associated with the security system; and controlling, by the gateway device and based on the security data, operation of the security system. Appeal Br. 8, Claims App. Rejections (A). Claims 74, 75, 77, 83–85, 93–95, 97 and 99–101, 103 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–3, 5, 12, 17, 18, 21, 28 and 43 of Baum (US 8,473,619 B2, issued June 25, 2013). (B). Claims 76, 79, 81, and 98 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–3, 5, 12, 17, 18, 21, 28 and 43 of Baum in view of Tabe (US 2007/0256105 A1, published Nov. 1, 2007 A1). (C). Claims 93–95, 97 and 98 are rejected under 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Appeal 2019-004573 Application 13/335,279 3 (D). Claims 74–77, 79, 81, 83–85, 97–101 and 103–105 are rejected under 102(e) as being anticipated by Tabe. ANALYSIS2 Rejections A and B under Non-Statutory Double-Patenting Appellant advances no arguments regarding claims 74, 75, 77, 83-85, 93-95, 97 and 99-101, 103 as rejected by the Examiner under Rejection A, and claims 76, 79, 81 and 98, as rejected by the Examiner under Rejection B. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). Accordingly, we pro forma sustain the Examiner’s Rejections A and B on the grounds of Non-Statutory Double-Patenting, respectively. Rejection D under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings that Tabe discloses “sending, to a controller device of a security system, enrollment data associated with a gateway device, wherein configuration of the controller device, based on the enrollment data, enables communication, via the gateway device, between the security system and a remote device,” as recited in claim 74, and similarly recited in independent claims 93 and 99. Appeal Br. 5, 6. 2 Rejection C of claims 93–95, 97, and 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-004573 Application 13/335,279 4 The Examiner finds that Tabe discloses the disputed elements in paragraphs 76, 91, 92, 96, 97, and 124 of Tabe. Ans. 5, 6. Appellant contends: [t]he cited portions of Tabe disclose “[a] system component announces its presence by broadcasting a detection control message.” Tabe ¶ 97. A “[c]ontrol server receives the broadcast and adds the system component to the profile for that particular environment by extracting a detection type and properties for the system component from the detection message.” Id. Yet, according to Tabe, adding the “system component to the profile” merely allows the system component to be tracked or monitored. See id. ¶ 96. Tabe is silent regarding “enrollment data associated with a gateway device” enabling communication “via [a] gateway device, between the security system and a remote device,” as in claim 74. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant also contends: the Examiner does not address Appellant’s contention that Tabe does not disclose enabling communication “via [a] gateway device, between [a] security system and a remote device,” as recited in claim 74. . . . The general disclosure of a “control server” allowing a “system component” to be tracked and monitored in Tabe does not disclose each and every element of “sending, to a controller device of a security system, enrollment data associated with a gateway device, wherein configuration of the controller device, based on the enrollment data, enables communication, via the gateway device, between the security system and a remote device,” as recited by claim 74. See Tabe, ¶¶ 96-97. Reply Br. 2, 3. We agree with Appellant as our interpretation of the disclosure of Tabe coincides with that of Appellant. See Appeal Br. 5, 6; Reply Br. 2, 3. Appeal 2019-004573 Application 13/335,279 5 We conclude that the Examiner’s findings are not supported by Tabe for the reasons set forth by Appellant. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 74, 93, and 99, and we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Therefore, on this record, we find the weight of the evidence supports the positions articulated by Appellant in the briefs. Accordingly, as such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 74, 93, and 99. Because we reverse the rejection of independent claims 74, 93, and 99 on appeal, we also reverse the rejections of dependent claims 75–77, 79, 81, 83–85, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, and 103–105, which depend on claims 74, 93, and 99 respectively. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s Rejection D under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basi s Affirmed Reversed 74, 75, 77, 83– 85, 93–95, 97, 99–101, 103 Nonstatutory Double Patenting 74, 75, 77, 83– 85, 93– 95, 97, 99–101, 103 76, 79, 81, 98 Nonstatutory Double Patenting 76, 79, 81, 98 74–77, 79, 81, 83–85, 93–95, 97–101, 103– 105 102(e) Tabe 74–77, 79, 81, 83–85, 93–95, 97–101, 103–105 Appeal 2019-004573 Application 13/335,279 6 FINALITY AND RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Overall outcome 74–77, 79, 81, 83–85, 93–95, 97–101, 103–105 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation