Ex Parte Fan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2014

11468140 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUOXIN FAN,
VANI BUDHATI,
and
SUDHEER KUMAR PEDDIREDDY
____________

Appeal 2011-010661
Application 11/468,140
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010661
Application 11/468,140

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 9-20. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for mobile diagnostics and electronic
customer care, comprising:
a Mobile Diagnostics/Electronic Customer Care
(MD/ECC) server operable to:
send an HTML document to a mobile handset having a
diagnostic software application stored on the mobile handset,
and a second software application executable on the mobile
handset, the HTML document including a diagnostic script, the
diagnostic software application configured to identify a type of
the mobile handset and execute based on instructions in the
diagnostic script based upon the identification of the mobile
handset, wherein the instructions are executed using at least one
switch table stored in the mobile handset;
receive results from the diagnostic software application,
the results in a standardized format that can be interpreted by
the MD/ECC server regardless of an OEM of the mobile
handset;
interpret results received from the diagnostic software
application; and
return updated operating parameters to the mobile
handset based at least in part on the results of the diagnostic
software application, and wherein the diagnostic software
application is invoked using the second software application in
response to the server sending the diagnostic script in the
HTML document to the second software application.

Appeal 2011-010661
Application 11/468,140

3
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Marolia (US 2005/0114504 A1; pub. May 26, 2005), Sewell (US
2002/0165952 A1; pub. Nov. 7, 2002), Roundtree (US 7,353,016 B2; iss.
Apr. 1, 2008), and Kennedy, III (US 6,405,033 B1; iss. Jun. 11, 2002)
(hereinafter “Kennedy”).
2. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Marolia, Sewell,
Roundtree, Kennedy, and Shand (US 2006/0174034 A1; pub. Aug. 3,
2006).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the data logs 82
of Kennedy is not used in the execution of the instruction in a diagnostic
script?

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the data logs 82 of Kennedy is not a switch
table and is not used in the execution of the diagnostic script as required by
claim 1.
Claim 1 recites that the instructions in the diagnostic script are
executed using the switch table. There is no lexicographic definition of a
switch table, but in the disclosed context of JavaScript, a switch table would
just be a JavaScript switch statement. The Specification discloses that the
native code is executed using a JavaScript switch table to invoke the
underlying test functions based on the test type (para. [0026]). We agree
with the Appellants that the data logs 82 of Kennedy is not used in the
Appeal 2011-010661
Application 11/468,140

4
execution of the instructions in a diagnostic script much less used to invoke
the test functions based on the test type, as a JavaScript switch table would.
Instead, data logs 82 of Kennedy contain statistics reports regarding each
communication session established (col. 5, ll. 16-18). The Examiner has not
directed our attention to disclosure in Kennedy that establishes that data logs
82 is used in the execution of a diagnostic script.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 and claims 2-5 and 7- 8 dependent thereon. We will also not
sustain the rejection as it is directed to the remaining claims because
independent claims 9 and 16 require a switch table that is used to execute the
diagnostic script and the Examiner relies on Kennedy’s data logs 82 as the
switch table.
We will also not sustain the rejection of claim 6 because claim 6
depends from claim 1 and the Examiner relies on Kennedy to teach the
subject matter we found lacking in Kennedy above in our discussion of the
rejection of claim 1.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections.

REVERSED

hh