Ex Parte Desire

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2019

14467665 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/467,665 08/25/2014
79680 7590 01/31/2019
LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
A2000
One Main Street, Suite 1100
Cambridge, MA 02142
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joel Desire
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.
S2181-702019(BLG-0140) 9440
EXAMINER
PAULINO, LENIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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):
docketing@LALaw.com
CKent@LALaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOEL DESIRE 1
Appeal2018-006505
Application 14/467,665
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3-11, and 13-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Schneider Electric IT
Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-006505
Application 14/467,665
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to software application development
and deployment for mobile computing devices, particularly with respect to a
user application that includes widgets for controlling physical devices in an
identified space. See Spec. 1:6-1:8, 11:6-12:6. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
one or more memory elements collectively storing:
a plurality of widgets including a plurality of default
identifiers; and
a plurality of identifiers of a plurality of devices associated
with an identified space;
at least one processor in data communication with the one
or more memory elements;
a deployment component executable by the at least one
processor and configured to:
receive a request to bind the plurality of widgets to the
plurality of devices; and
bind, in response to receiving the request, the plurality of
widgets to the plurality of devices by replacing one or more
default identifiers of the plurality of default identifiers with one
or more identifiers of the plurality of identifiers,
wherein the request to bind is included in a request to
deploy and the deployment component is further configured to
transmit, in response to receiving the request to deploy, a user
app to a mobile computing device, the user app including the
2
Appeal2018-006505
Application 14/467,665
plurality of widgets and being configured to monitor and control
the plurality of devices via the plurality of widgets.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2015/0222691 Al; Aug. 6, 2015) and
Ayyagari (US 2002/0062405 Al; May 23, 2002).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Zhang and Ayyagari teaches
or suggests all the limitations of independent claim 1, including that Zhang
teaches "the deployment component is further configured to transmit, in
response to receiving the request to deploy, a user app to a mobile
computing device, the user app including the plurality of widgets," as recited
in independent claim 1. Final Act. 5-6. Appellant contends the Examiner's
combination fails to disclose the claim 1 feature of transmitting to a mobile
computing device a user app that includes widgets. App. Br. 5. Appellant
has persuaded us of Examiner error.
Zhang describes a hub application operating on a user device that can
receive widgets for controlling physical devices. Zhang ,r,r 13-14. In an
exemplary method, the hub application detects a physical device and extracts
device information that identifies the device. Zhang ,r,r 15-17. Based on the
extracted device information, the hub application receives a widget that
contains template information corresponding to the physical device. Zhang
,r 18. Then, the hub application may request and receive a template from an
application server, and the widget may be rendered on the user device using
the template. Zhang ,r 32. Zhang's hub application exists on the user device
3
Appeal2018-006505
Application 14/467,665
prior to receiving widgets and templates for use in controlling detected
physical devices, contrary to the claim 1 limitation of transmitting "a user
app to a mobile computing device, the user app including the plurality of
widgets."
In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that it is not Zhang's hub
application that meets the claimed "user app," but rather the "hub
application in Zhang is an application that renders the user app ( collection of
widgets)." Ans. 4. We disagree with the Examiner that Zhang's widgets
collectively comprise a "user app" as recited in claim 1. Even if a widget
can itself be considered an application, sending widgets to Zhang's hub
application does not meet the limitation of transmitting a single "user app
including the plurality of widgets."
The Examiner also concludes
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art
to modify Zhang' s teaching of widget distribution from a
manufacture to a hub application with Ayyagari's teaching to
include pre-installation packaged pre-binded with the proper
values needed for the widgets to communicate with the physical
device( s) and transmitting a software package to a user device.
Ans. 4--5.
The Examiner has not shown that Ayyagari teaches sending a software
package to a mobile computing device as recited in claim 1. Rather,
Ayyagari teaches loading a pre-installation package that includes various
software applications on target computers prior to shipping the computers
from a factory site to a customer site. Ayyagari ,r,r 25-26. Accordingly,
Ayyagari does not cure the deficiency of Zhang discussed above with
respect to the claim 1 feature of transmitting a user app that includes widgets
to a mobile computing device.
4
Appeal2018-006505
Application 14/467,665
We are, therefore, constrained to find the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1, independent claims 11 and 20, which recite
commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 3-10 and 13-19 for the
same reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-11, and 13-
20.
REVERSED
5