Ex Parte Fiatal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2017

13158706 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 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.
13/158,706 06/13/2011 Trevor Fiatal 455/022/2 UTIL 9987
118194 7590 05/30/2017
NK Patent Law- Seven Networks
4917 Waters Edge Drive
Suite 275
Raleigh, NC 27606
EXAMINER
BIBBEE, CHAYCE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2017 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):
u sptomail @ nkpatentlaw .com
abackholm @ seven, com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TREVOR FIATAL
Appeal 2017-003970
Application 13/158,7061
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 decision rejecting claims 1—7 and 9—21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Seven Networks,
LLC. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-003970
Application 13/158,706
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application relates to “the transport of data objects
to a mobile device from a data store in a mobile network without relying
upon a store-and-forward methodology.” Spec. 13.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below, with the disputed limitation
emphasized and bracketed material added.
1. A method for facilitating mobile traffic for an application
to a mobile device, the method, comprising:
maintaining, at a facilitating server, a record which
indicates that a data source is associated with or accessible by the
mobile device through the application accessed at the mobile
device;
detecting, by the facilitating server, an event or data
change at the data source that provides the application accessed
at the mobile device;
automatically notifying the mobile device by the
facilitating server, of the event or data change at the data source;
pulling, at the facilitating server, a data object from the
data source subsequent to detecting the event or the data change
and prior to or concurrent with establishing a data connection
between the facilitating server and the mobile device; and
either forwarding the data object from the facilitating
server to the mobile device over an available data connection, or
removing the data object from the facilitating server [LI]
because no data connection is available from the facilitating
server to the mobile device.
2
Appeal 2017-003970
Application 13/158,706
The Rejections
Claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-15, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over O’Farrell (US 2004/0224674; Nov. 11,
2004) and Lee (US 2005/0088989; Apr. 28, 2005).
Claim 4 stands rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over
O’Farrell, Lee, and Levett (US 2004/0148375; July 29, 2004).
Claim 16 stands rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over
O’Farrell, Lee, and Eric Yeh (US 2005/0164721; July 28, 2005).
Claim 17 stands rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over
O’Farrell, Lee, and Banister (US 6,621,892; Sept. 16, 2003).
Claim 20 stands rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over
Mittal (US 2003/0022662; Jan. 30, 2003), Morlitz (US 2002/0174208;
Nov. 21, 2002), and Lee.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3, 5—7, 9—15, 18, 19, and 21
Appellant argues claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-15, 18, 19, and 21 together. Br.
5. As permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015), we select claim 1 as
representative of this group and decide the appeal as to the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims based on claim 1 alone.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, as
well as the Examiner’s Answer thereto. We are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments. We agree with, and adopt as our own, the
Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Non-Final Action and the Answer.
We emphasize the following.
3
Appeal 2017-003970
Application 13/158,706
Appellant admits the cited-reference Lee teaches a server/database 30,
40 that receives user-selected data from a service provider and, per the user’s
instructions, either: (i) forwards the data to the user or (ii) deletes the data.
Br. 6. Appellant argues, however, Lee fails to meet limitation LI because
the user’s decision to forward or delete the data is premised upon whether
the selected data was fully transmitted to the server/database 30, 40 for
forwarding to the MS, not upon whether a data connection is available for
such forwarding, as claimed. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they do not respond
to the Examiner’s findings and the teachings of the cited references. The
Examiner does not find Lee’s forwarding or removing of the data by the
server/database 30, 40 is expressly premised upon whether the forwarding
connection is available. Rather, the Examiner finds Lee evinces a general
understanding that users prefer (or at least prefer the option) to delete
partially-downloaded data if the download cannot be completed. Ans. 4
(citing Lee 5, 72—73), 13—14 (citing Lee Tflf 5, 72—73). The Examiner
further finds this understanding would motivate an artisan to delete (or, at
least, allow deleting of) partially-downloaded data if the download could not
be completed due to loss of a forwarding connection. Id. We observe that
Lee’s figure 4 teaches at step S40 to “delete the data” upon a determination
not to transmit the partially-downloaded data. Lee, Tig. 4. further, Lee
describes: “In the case of the choice of cancellation, the data connection
server deletes the selected data from the network storage space (S41).
Herein, the selected data is data that has been incompletely transmitted to the
network storage space.” Lee 174.
4
Appeal 2017-003970
Application 13/158,706
Appellant fails to rebut the Examiner’s findings in the record before
us. For instance, Appellant does not assert the Examiner’s statement of an
ordinarily-skilled artisan’s understanding is unsupported. We note
Appellant has not filed a reply brief, permitted under our Rules.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-15, 18, 19, and 21.
Claims 4, 16, 17, and 20
Appellant presents no further arguments related to these claims.
Br. 7—14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 16,
17, and 20 for the reasons stated above.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7 and 9—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
5