Ex Parte Ahrens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2016

11664175 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/664,175 0312912007
88087 7590 04/22/2016
Fritzsche Patent
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN)
P. 0. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Werner Ahrens
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.
2004Pl3970WOUS 6943
EXAMINER
PATEL, HITESHKUMARR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2016 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):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WERNER AHRENS and HEINRICH BARTELS
Appeal2014-002309
Application 11/664,175
Technology Center 2400
Before KEN B. BARRETT, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a rejection of claims
20-28, 34--37, and 39--44, all remaining claims of the application. 1 We
heard oral argument March 24, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
August 20, 2013), Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," mailed November
27, 2013), the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 21, 2013),
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 16, 2013), and the
Specification ("Spec.," as amended March 29, 2007).
Appeal2014-002309
Application 11/664,175
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to "a communication system comprising a
message processing computer and a multiplicity of communication
networks, each of which has an interface computer." Spec. 1: 6-9. The
message processing computer, responsive to a request from a
communication device to locate another device, queries a database to
determine which of multiple computer networks have information relating to
the requested device. Spec. 15:28-17:25.
Claim 20, reproduced below, is illustrative with disputed limitations
in italics:
20. A communication system, comprising:
a message processing computer;
a plurality of communication networks, each of the
networks comprising an interface computer linked to the
message processing computer and a plurality of communication
devices connected to the interface computer;
at least one database, the at least one database comprising
a plurality of identification codes corresponding to
communication devices located within at least one
communication network of the plurality of communication
networks such that a query of the at least one database based on
the identification code identifies any communication device
assigned to the identification code; and
wherein a first communication device transmits a request
message to the message processing computer, the request
message comprising a first identification code that is assigned
to a user associated with a plurality of target communication
devices, at least one of the target communication devices being
in a different one of the plurality of communication networks
than another one of the target communication devices; and
in response to the request message, the message
processing computer queries the at least one database to
2
Appeal2014-002309
Application 11/664,175
determine the target communication devices assigned to the
first identification code such that the communication networks
that the target communication devices are located within are
identifiable; and
wherein the message processing computer sends a
communication network request message to each interface
computer of the communication networks that the target
communication devices are located within, each of the
communication network request messages requesting at least
one further parameter related to the target communication
device in the network of that interface computer; and
wherein each interface computer of the communication
networks sends a response message having the at least one
further parameter to the message processing computer; and
wherein the message processing computer evaluates the
at least one further parameter of the response messages to
determine a location of a target communication device of the
target communication devices that the user is currently using.
THE REJECTION
Claims 20-28, 34--37, and 39--44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bahl (US 2002/0095486 Al; published July
18, 2002) and O'Toole (US 7,139,820 Bl; issued Nov. 21, 2006). Final Act.
6---12.
ISSUE
Appellants' arguments present the dispositive issue: Has the
Examiner erred by finding the combination of Bahl and O'Toole teaches or
suggests that the message processing computer sends a request to the
interface computer of each of the multiple computer networks and receives a
3
Appeal2014-002309
Application 11/664,175
response from each interface computer, as recited in independent claims 20
and 34?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 20, the Examiner finds Bahl teaches sending a
request from a message processing computer to an interface computer and
the interface computer sending a response back. Final Act. 8 (citing Bahl
i-fi-130, 31, 35, 42--45, Fig. 4). The Examiner then finds Bahl does not
disclose "sending a request message to each interface computer of each of
the networks," but finds O'Toole, in combination with Bahl, provides such a
disclosure. Id. at 9; Ans. 4--5.
Appellants argue Bahl fails to disclose any interface computers as
recited and further argue the combination of Bahl and O'Toole fails to teach
or suggest sending a request from a message processing computer to each
interface computer of multiple networks. App. Br. 19-20.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Bahl
discloses any interface computers. Though not specifically identified by the
Examiner, Bahl shows server 202 coupled with a plurality of mobile devices
218, 220, 222 via a single network access point 216. Bahl Fig. 2. Server
202 of Figure 2 queries its database 206 for information about an identified
mobile device and, thus, appears to be the recited message processing
computer of claim 20 in the Examiner's rejection. See Bahl i-fi-130-32; see
also Ans. 4 (citing Bahl Fig. 2, i1 30). Thus, we find no teaching or
suggestion in Bahl of an interface computer as recited, to which the message
processing computer sends a request. Neither do we find an interface
computer in Bahl that returns a response to such a request.
4
Appeal2014-002309
Application 11/664,175
The Examiner relies on O'Toole in the proposed combination for
teaching or suggesting multiple such interface computers (one per network)
to which the message processing computer sends requests and which send a
response back. Specifically, the Examiner maps the recited interface
computers (one per network) to nodes 105-1, 105-2, and 105-3 of O'Toole's
Figure 1 and associated descriptive text. Ans. 5 (citing 0' Toole Fig. 1, Fig.
3, 11 :6-20; 14:46-63, 19:35--47).
Appellants argue "there is no disclosure or suggestion of any interface
computers responding to requests for information sent by a message
processing computer." Reply Br. 2. Similarly, Appellants contend "[t]here
is no suggestion of multiple interface computers each responding to a
request message from a message processing computer." Reply Br. 3. We
agree with Appellants. Nodes 105-1, 105-2, and 105-3 are network
appliances (e.g., routers, switches, etc.). O'Toole 14:59-63. As such, a
request from a first device (O'Toole Fig. 1 (server 120)) is directed toward a
second device (id. (target device 140)) via a path through one or more
intermediate network appliances (id. (nodes 105-1, 105-2, and 105-3)).
O'Toole does not teach that a message is sent to each of nodes 105-1, 105-2,
and 105-3 as required from the claimed message processing computer to the
recited interface computers. Furthermore, O'Toole does not disclose that
each intermediate node on the path between server 120 and target device 140
sends a response back to a message processing computer as required of the
claimed interface computers. See Reply Br. 2--4.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred by finding the
combination of Bahl and O'Toole teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations as recited in independent claim 20 and as similarly recited in
5
Appeal2014-002309
Application 11/664,175
independent claim 34. For the same reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting dependent claims 21-28, 35-37, and 39--44.
Appellants raise additional issues in the Briefs. We are persuaded of
error with regard to the identified issue discussed supra, which is dispositive
as to the rejection of all claims. Therefore, we do not reach the additional
issues.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 20-
28, 34--37, and 39--44 is reversed.
REVERSED
6