Ex Parte Ferrazzini et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

12188925 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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.
12/188,925 08/08/2008 Axel FERRAZZINI 33920-US-PAT 5939
4214-10300
82313 7590 12/21/2016
Conley Rose - BlackBerry Files
Attn: J. Robert Brown
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
HOLLAND, SHERYL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
ConleyRoseReporting@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AXEL FERRAZZINI, MICHAEL SHENFIELD, and
JAMES ANDREW GODFREY1
Appeal 2016-004100
Application 12/188,925
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, and
JOHN D. HAMANN Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 21^41.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Research In Motion
Limited. Br. 3.
2 Claims 1—20 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2016-004100
Application 12/188,925
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to providing an updated management
object to an agent. The agent specifies the updated management object and
a device management client provides the updated management object. See
Spec. H17—18, Abstract.
Representative claim 21, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, read as follows (disputed limitations in italics)'.
21. A mobile device comprising:
an agent on the mobile device;
an Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Device Management
(DM) client on the mobile device; and
a processor configured to execute the agent and the OMA
DM client that is configured for:
receiving, at the OMA DM client, a registration
command from said agent, the registration command specifying
a Management Object (MO) associated with said agent and
managed by the DM client, wherein the agent is configured to
operate according to the MO specified in the registration
command, and wherein the registration command further
indicates a request by the agent to be notified when an updated
version of the MO becomes available;
responsive to an update to the MO, sending from the
OMA DM client to the agent, a notification regarding the
updated MO; and
initiating an update to a configuration of the agent such
that the agent operates according to the updated MO.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
Claims 21—41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kapadekar et al. (US 2007/0093243 Al, published April 26, 2007)
(“Kapadekar”) and Rao (US 2008/0126555 Al, published May 29, 2008).
See Final Act. 3—20.
2
Appeal 2016-004100
Application 12/188,925
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Brief and the Examiner’s response in the Answer. We are
not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 21—23, 25—29, 31—36, and 38—41. We agree with, and adopt as our
own, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions of law regarding claims 21—
23, 25—29, 31—36, and 38-41 to the extent that they are consistent with our
below analysis. We, however, are persuaded of error with respect to the
rejection of claims 24, 30, and 37. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments below for emphasis.
Claims 21. 23. 25-27. 29. 31-36. and 38-41
Appellants argue that Kapadekar and Rao do not teach “an Open
Mobile Alliance (OMA) Device Management (DM) client on a mobile
device receiving a registration command from an agent on the mobile
device, wherein the registration command specifies a request by the agent to
be notified when an updated version of a management object (MO) becomes
available,” as required by independent claims 21, 25, 27, 34, and 38. Br.
10. Appellants assert that the cited references are silent as to “a DM client
on a mobile device receiving a registration command from an agent on a
mobile device” because Kapadekar’s “DM client” and “client agent” are not
located on a mobile device as claimed. Id. at 10-12.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. As noted in the Final
Rejection, Kapadekar discloses a client agent (see Kapadekar 1495) and a
DM client interpreted by the Examiner as the OMA DM Client Service (see
Kapadekar 1497). Final Act. 3. Kapadekar’s client agent and OMA DM
Client Service are components of the device management client which is
3
Appeal 2016-004100
Application 12/188,925
resident on a mobile device. Ans. 21—22 (citing Kapadekar, Figure 2, item
163); see also Kapadekar || 293, 495, 497. Kapadekar’s client agent uses
the OMA DM Client Service (DM client) as an interface to communicate
with the device management server and transmit a registration command.
Final Act. 4 (citing Kapadekar || 495—509); see also Kapadekar | 512.
Appellants further argue that the combination of Kapadekar and Rao
is improper because modifying Kapadekar to include the client agent and/or
DM client on the mobile device would render Kapadekar unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose. Br. 12. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument because as noted above, Kapadekar discloses a client agent and
DM client residing on a mobile device and, accordingly, no modification is
necessary. Ans. 21—22.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
independent claims 21, 25, 27, 34, and 38. Appellants do not present
separate, substantive arguments addressing dependent claims 23, 26, 29, 31—
33,35,36, and 39-41. See Br. 10—15. Accordingly, for the same reasons as
those addressing claims 21, 25, 27, 34, and 38, we sustain the rejection of
claims 23, 26, 29, 31—33, 35, 36, and 39-41.
Claims 22 and 28
Appellants argue Kapadekar and Rao do not teach “a mobile device
comprises a DM client that acts as an intermediary between an agent on the
mobile device and an MO, wherein a DM client initiates an update to a
configuration of the agent by sending an updated MO with the notification
regarding the updated MO,” as required by dependent claims 22 and 28. Br.
13. Specifically, Appellants assert that Rao is silent as to a DM client on a
4
Appeal 2016-004100
Application 12/188,925
mobile device acting an intermediary between an agent on the mobile device
and a MO. Id.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because, as noted above,
Kapadekar discloses a DM client on a mobile device acting an intermediary
between an agent on the mobile device and the server. Ans. 21—22; Final
Act. 4 (citing Kapadekar || 495—509). Further, as noted in the Final
Rejection, Rao teaches an updated MO (firmware update management object
(FUMO)) being broadcast from a server to the mobile device. Final Act. 5—
6. Accordingly, in combination, Kapadekar’s DM client acts as an
intermediary between Kapadekar’s client agent and Rao’s MO being
broadcast to the mobile device. Ans. 25. For these reasons, in addition to
the reasons given above addressing independent claims 21 and 27, we
sustain the rejection of claims 22 and 28.
Claims 24, 30, and 37
Appellants argue Kapadekar and Rao do not teach “an OMA DM
client on a mobile device communicating an update [d] MO to an agent on
the mobile device responsive to determining that the agent is authorized to
access the MO,” as required by dependent claims 24 and 30. Br. 14.
Appellants further assert that “nothing in the passages cited from Kapadekar
and Rao or elsewhere suggest a DM client on a mobile device
communicating an updated MO to an agent on a mobile device, much less
doing so responsive to determining that the agent is authorized to access the
MO.” Id. at 15. The Examiner asserts that Kapadekar discloses the device
management client residing on the mobile device and working with the DM
server for verification of software services while Rao discloses the
5
Appeal 2016-004100
Application 12/188,925
processing notification messages for the MO after authentication. Ans. 25—
26 (citing Kapadekar 1293; Rao 145).
Appellants’ argument with respect to a DM client on a mobile device
communicating an updated MO to an agent on a mobile device is
unpersuasive for the reasons described above; however, Appellants’
argument with respect to authorization is persuasive. The Examiner does
not direct us to sufficient support in either the Kapadekar or Rao references
for a teaching of “communicating, from the OMA DM client to the agent,
the updated MO responsive to determining that the agent is authorized to
access the MO.” Kapadekar discloses a device management client working
with a device management server to “coordinate multiple steps of device
verification.” Kapadekar 1293. Kapadekar discloses device verification;
however, the limited discussion of device verification in paragraph 293
provides no teaching or suggestion of “determining that the agent is
authorized to access the MO.” Rao discloses that “the mobile device 202
may process the notification message after authenticating it. Authentication
may comprise, for example, verifying the digital signature that may have
been sent in a header that may correspond to the notification message.” Rao
145. Rao also fails to provide a teaching or suggestion of “determining that
the agent is authorized to access the MO” because verifying a digital
signature of a message would authenticate the message itself and not the
agent receiving it. For these reasons, we are constrained to reverse the
rejection of claims 24, 30, and 37.
6
Appeal 2016-004100
Application 12/188,925
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 21—23, 25—29, 31—36, and 38-41.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 24, 30, and 37.
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-IN-PART
7