Ex Parte Burke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13632686 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
13/632,686 10/01/2012 Robert William Burke JR. 20120410USNP/106681.38601 6531
75313 7590 12/30/2016
XEROX CORPORATION C/O FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
Princeton Pike Corporate Center
997 Lenox Drive, Building 3
Princeton, NJ 08648-2311
EXAMINER
LAM, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
ipdocket @ foxrothschild. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT WILLIAM BURKE, JR.
Appeal 2016-000185
Application 13/632,686
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JEFFREY S. SMITH,
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—22 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “systems and methods for performing
document services using Mobile Communication Devices (‘MCDs’), and
more particularly, to systems and methods configured for providing non-
connected product data exchange using Near Field Communication (‘NFC’)
technology and/or mobile technology.” Specification, Paragraph 1.
Appeal 2016-000185
Application 13/632,686
Representative Claim
1. A method for providing data exchange between
electronic devices which are not network accessible to each
other, comprising:
monitoring, by a multi-functional device located at a
customer facility, a plurality of operational parameters thereof
that correspond to at least one of a plurality of different
functional categories;
receiving, by the multi-functional device, a first user
input selecting a first functional category of the plurality of
different functional categories;
in response to the first user input, dynamically
generating, by the multi-functional device, a first data string
comprising a first subset of operational parameters that
corresponds to the first functional category previously selected
by the first user input and first destination data specifying a
destination corresponding to the first functional category;
outputting the first data string from the multi-functional
device via a near field communication such that data can be
exchanged between the multi-functional device and a service
provider system via an intermediary communication device,
where the multi-functional device and
the service provider system are not network accessible to
each other;
receiving, by the multi-functional device, a second user
input selecting a second functional category which is different
than the first functional category of the plurality of different
functional categories; and
in response to said second user input, dynamically
generating by and outputting from the multi-functional device a
second data string different from said first data string which
comprises a second subset of operational parameters that
corresponds to the second functional category and
second destination data specifying a destination
corresponding to the second functional category.
2
Appeal 2016-000185
Application 13/632,686
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoarau (US Patent Application Publication Number
2013/0278963 Al; published October 24, 2016) and Anderson (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2013/0275203 Al; published October 17,
2013). Final Rejection 3—9.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 26, 2015), the Answer (mailed
August 13, 2015) and the Final Rejection (mailed February 12, 2015) for the
respective details. We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellant contends Anderson fails to disclose several of the claimed
features such as “outputting the data string from MFD [multifunctional
device] via NFC [near field communication] such that the data can be
exchanged between MFD and SPS [service provider system] via ICD
[intermediary communication device], where the MCD and SPS are not
network accessible to each other.” Appeal Brief 14.
3
Appeal 2016-000185
Application 13/632,686
Appellant’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:
2>Vj
“FIG. 1 [above] is a schematic illustration of a [sic] example of a
system configured to provide non-connected product data exchange via
NFC, barcode and/or mobile technology.” Specification, Paragraph 8.
Appellant’s invention is a “method (400, 600) for providing data
exchange between electronic devices (102,118) which are not network
accessible to each other.” Appeal Brief 7 (footnote omitted). Appellant’s
invention accomplishes the data exchange by monitoring a plurality of
operational parameters of the MFD (102), outputting the data string of the
operational parameters via NFC (120) to an ICD (104) and wherein the ICD
(104) communicates to the SPS (118). Appeal Brief 7.
The Examiner finds Hoarau discloses exchanging data by monitoring
“operational data parameters”1 at print service providers (PSP) monitoring
1 Hoarau discloses in paragraph 26: “Examples of operations data
parameters/inputs include machine status, machine throughput, quantity of
machines online/offline, print job scheduling, print job class, print job
location in the PSP, pending service requests, general comments, special
flags, machine parameters, historical data, employee status, employee
4
Appeal 2016-000185
Application 13/632,686
locations by employing automatic workflow monitors with sensors that
include a “near field communicator (NFC).” Final Rejection 3^4 (citing
Hoarau, Paragraphs 15, 25). Hoarau further discloses in paragraph 36 that
once the set of operational parameters has been determined, the PSP
operation model is prepared/generated using the operational parameters.
The Examiner finds Hoarau fails to disclose the manner in which the sensors
exchange the data obtained at the PSP operations monitoring locations.
Final Rejection 4. The Examiner finds Anderson discloses:
When the customer scans bar code 22 using a QR Code reader,
browser application 112, which may be separate from the QR
Code reader software program or a part thereof, accesses web
server 130 via internet 120. Alternatively, the URI [uniform
resource identifier] may be encoded on supply item 20 in a form
other than a bar code as desired. For example, near field
communication (NFC) may be used instead. NFC permits a
device, such as a smart phone, to establish radio communication
with another device when the two devices are touched together
or brought in close proximity to each other.
Final Rejection 5 (citing Anderson, paragraph 23).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that modifying Hoarau’s NFC
capable sensors to exchange operational parameters data obtained at PSP
monitoring locations via an intermediary communication device such as a
smart phone with NFC capability would have been obvious in view of
Anderson. See Final Rejection 6. The type of data being sent or exchanged
is not germane to the novelty of the invention because the type of data did
not transform or modify the exchange method in a patentably distinctive
throughput, total employees, employee experience, employee scheduling,
and combinations thereof.”
5
Appeal 2016-000185
Application 13/632,686
manner.2 Consequently, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1, as well as independent claims 12 and 21, and dependent claims 2—
11, 13—20 and 22 not separately argued. Appeal Brief 16.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—22 is affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
2 “As our precedents make clear . . . the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398,418 (2007).
6