Ex Parte EggertDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 12, 201813729821 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2018) 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. 13/729,821 12/28/2012 Jens EGGERT P6908US00 4070 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER JAHNIGE, CAROLINE H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/17/2018 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JENS EGGERT Appeal 2017-006673 Application 13/729,821 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN D. HAMANN, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 8—16, 18—20, 49, and 50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2017-006673 Application 13/729,821 Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 illustrates the invention as follows: 1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the following: at least one determination, using a first user device located at at least one event, of an input for specifying at least one object to associate with at least one content channel; and a designation, using the first user device located at the at least one event, of the at least one object, one or more representations of the at least one object, or a combination thereof as at least one authentication key for accessing the at least one content channel from a location of the at least one event, wherein an authentication of the at least one authentication key as presented by at least one second user device at the at least one event authenticates the at least one second user device to access to the at least one content channel. Rejections The Examiner has rejected: (i) claims 1, 2, 4, 8—12, 14, and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ashbrook (US 2008/0298689 Al, published Dec. 4, 2008), in view of Evans (US 8,538,389 Bl, issued Sept. 17, 2013) and further in view of Duquenoy- bemaudin (US 2014/0117078 Al, published May 1, 2014); (ii) claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ashbrook in view of Evans in view of Duquenoy- bemaudin and further in view of Kondoh (US 2009/0154767 Al, published June 18, 2009); 2 Appeal 2017-006673 Application 13/729,821 (iii) claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ashbrook in view of Evans in view of Duquenoy-bemaudin and further in view of Bokor (US 2009/0116641 Al, published May 7, 2009); (iv) claims 49 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ashbrook in view of Evans in view of Duquenoy-bemaudin and further in view of Simelius (US 2004/0268381 Al, published Dec. 30, 2004). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia (emphasis added), “wherein an authentication of the at least one authentication key as presented by at least one second user device at the at least one event authenticates the at least one second user device to access to the at least one content channel.'1'’1 Appellant argues Ashbrook does not teach this limitation. App. Br. 6— 7; Reply Br. 2-4. In particular, Appellant argues, and we agree, image key as taught in Ashbrook et al. is a database key that is used for “indexing” content. Paragraph [0048] of Ashbrook et al. describes: “A model user image key for indexing the content database is then automatically created. . .” (emphasis added). Appellant wishes to note that Ashbrook et al. is silent with respect to any authentication procedure at all, let alone, authentication of “the at least one second user device” as recited in claim 1. Appellant submits that image searching, as disclosed in Ashbrook et al., only gets matched images in a database. However, presenting an authentication key to authenticate a user device to 1 Claim 11 recites similar subject matter. 3 Appeal 2017-006673 Application 13/729,821 access a content channel allows the user device to do other actions in the content channel such as posting new content to the content channel so that the users of the content channel may share various content items (see paragraphs [0030] and [0061]). Reply Br. 2—3. We agree with Appellant’s interpretation of the disclosure of Ashbrook. See App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 2—\. We conclude that the Examiner’s findings are not supported by Ashbrook for the reasons set forth by Appellant. 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 rejection of claims 1 and 11. Because we reverse the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 on appeal, we also reverse the rejections of dependent claims 2—6, 8—10, 12—16, 18—20, 49, and 50, which depend on claims 1 or 11. 4 Appeal 2017-006673 Application 13/729,821 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected Basis References Affirmed Reversed 1,2,4, 8-10, 11, 12, 14, and 18- 20 § 103 Ashbrook, Evans, Duquenoy- bemaudin I, 2,4, 8-10, II, 12, 14, and 18-20 3 and 13 §103 Ashbrook, Evans, Duquenoy- bemaudin, Kondoh 3 and 13 5, 6, 15, and 16 §103 Ashbrook, Evans, Duquenoy- bemaudin, Bokor 5, 6, 15, and 16 49 and 50 §103 Ashbrook, Evans, Duquenoy- bemaudin, Simelius 49 and 50 Summary 1-6, 8-16, 18-20, 49, and 50 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6, 8—16, 18—20, 49, and 50 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation