Ex Parte Croome

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2017

13920748 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2017)

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.
13/920,748 06/18/2013 Martin CROOME SC-04-15-2 9532
114037 7590 07/17/2017
Patent Ventures (WM)
Client/Project: Wireless Memory
P.O. Box 1668
Georgetown, TX 78627
EXAMINER
AJIBADE AKONAI, OLUMIDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN CROOME
Appeal 2017-004844
Application 13/920,7481
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BETH Z. SHAW, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 2—21. Claim 1 has been cancelled
by Appellant. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Socket Mobile,
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-004844
Application 13/920,748
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application relates to memory modules for
operation with a host, a remote device, and a network to provide wireless
connectivity. Spec. 12.
Independent claim 2 is reproduced below with bracketed material
added and disputed limitations emphasized.
2. A method, comprising:
plugging an electronic device in a compatible holder
enabled to removably mount the electronic device and connect a
power source thereto, the electronic device having an expansion
interface and enclosing a control sub-system, a non-volatile
memory enabled to store one or more files, and a wireless
network interface;
communicating, via the wireless interface, between the
electronic device and a remote device;
[LI] directing the control sub-system from the remote
device, at least in part in response to client-server transactions
initiated via a remote client user interface;
[L2] loading some of the one or more files into the non­
volatile memory, via the wireless interface, from and as directed
by the remote device',
loading other of the one or more files into the non-volatile
memory, via the expansion interface;
using at least one of the loaded files for a particular use
beyond simply storage; and
[L3] wherein the communicating, the directing, and the
loading via the wireless interface, are at least in part performed
without requiring any local user action.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 2—4, 7—9, 17, and 19—21, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as anticipated by Inkinen (US 7,194,038 Bl;
March 20, 2007). Final Act. 2-5 (Sept. 23, 2015).
2
Appeal 2017-004844
Application 13/920,748
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 10-16, and 18, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Inkinen and Myers (US 2002/0101519
Al; Aug. 1, 2002). Final Act. 6—10.
ANALYSIS
According to Appellant, “[cjlaims 2—21 stand or fall together as a
single group.” App. Br. 9. Based on Appellant’s argument, we select claim
2 as representative and decide the appeal on the basis of this claim. See 37
C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Claim Construction
Appellant contends client-server means “[a] common form of
distributed system in which software is split between server tasks and client
tasks. A client sends requests to a server, according to some protocol,
asking for information or action, and the server responds.” App. Br. 9
(citing http://foldoc.org/client-server (1998)). Appellant elaborates that the
Examiner “effectively ignor[es]” the terms client and server because the
Examiner finds that “a client-server transaction can simply be a device
(server) communicating with another device (client).” Reply Br. 2 (citing
Ans. 2).
We do not agree with Appellant’s proffered construction of the term
“client-server transactions” recited in limitation LI. We apply the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the specification, as
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of
Sci. Tech Ctr., ?>61 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
Where the written description does not explicitly define a term, the term
should be given its ordinary meaning. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321
3
Appeal 2017-004844
Application 13/920,748
(Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellant does not identify any portion of the written description explicitly
defining the term “client-server transactions” (see generally App. Br. 9—11)
and we are unable to identify therein an explicit definition of that term.
Thus, we accord term “client-server transactions” its ordinary meaning.
Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321; Morris 127 F.3d at 1054. Although Appellant cites
foldoc.org in support of its construction, we observe the Authoritative
Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms defines “client-server” as:
In a communications network, the client is the requesting device
and the server is the supplying device. For example, the user
interface could reside in the client workstation while the storage
and retrieval functions could reside in the server database.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, The Authoritative
Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms 556 (7th ed., IEEE Press 2000). The
same dictionary further defines “client-server communication” as: “A
communication pattern, where a specific object, the client, communicates in
a one-to-one fashion with a specific server object, the server.” Id. In light
of the foregoing, we interpret the claimed “client-server transactions”
broadly, yet reasonably, to encompass transactions where a requesting
device (client) communicates a request to a supplying device (server).
Limitation LI
Applying our construction of the term “client-server transactions,” we
agree with the Examiner that Inkinen meets limitation LI. A claim is
anticipated where each claimed element is disclosed, either expressly or
inherently, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil
Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). There is no ipsissimis
verbis test for determining whether a reference discloses a claim element,
4
Appeal 2017-004844
Application 13/920,748
i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Inkinen describes
transmission of instructions from the wireless device 5 (i.e. the remote
device) to the data communication device 8 (i.e. the electronic device).
Final Act. 3 (citing Inkinen, 4:13—30). Thus, the Examiner correctly finds
that wireless device 5 functions as a server and data communication device 8
functions as a client in the transfer of data and instructions between them
(i.e., client-serve transactions). Ans. 3. We further observe Inkinen
describes the data transfers (i.e., client-serve transactions) are initiated “most
preferably automatically on the basis of the logic of the data communication
device” or alternatively “on the bas[i]s of instructions given by the wireless
device” (i.e., initiated via a remote client user interface). Inkinen, 4:13—30.
Limitation L2
With regard to limitation L2, Appellant contends Inkinen does not
disclose the claimed loading of “files into the non-volatile memory [of the
electronic device] ... at least in part performed without requiring any local
user action” because Inkinen automates only transmissions from the data
communication device to the mobile station, not vice-versa as recited by the
claim. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2—3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The portions of
Inkinen cited by the Examiner state:
Regarding the operation of the electronic device the data
communication device is used as ordinary expansion memory,
but the data can be read and written also by an external device,
such as by a mobile station using a short-range radio frequency
link.
5
Appeal 2017-004844
Application 13/920,748
Inkinen, 2:56—61 (emphasis added); see also Final Act 3. Thus, Inkinen
describes bi-directional data transfer allowing data to be written into the data
communication device 8, not merely unidirectional data transfer as
Appellant contends.
Limitation L3
Appellant asserts Inkinen’s writing of data into the data
communication device 8 is not automated and, therefore, does not describe
the claimed loading “at least in part performed without requiring any local
user action.” App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 2—3. Assuming arguendo Inkinen’s
writing (i.e., loading into non-volatile memory) is not automated, we
nevertheless are not persuaded by this argument because it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim language. Limitation L3 requires
merely the claimed set of communicating, directing, and loading be “at least
in part performed without requiring any local user action” (emphasis added).
Even if Inkinen’s loading requires local user action, Appellant does not
contend that Inkinen’s communicating and directing each also require user
action. See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 2—3. Accordingly, at minimum,
Inkinen’s communicating and directing—as identified by the Examiner and
uncontested by Appellant—meet limitation L3.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 2 together with claims 3—21.
6
Appeal 2017-004844
Application 13/920,748
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2—21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7