Ex Parte Friend et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201311700523 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/700,523 01/30/2007 John Friend 5545P025D 8958 8791 7590 02/26/2013 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER BLAIR, DOUGLAS B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2442 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN FRIEND, MICHAEL BELSHE, and DAVID HOFFMAN ____________ Appeal 2010-006116 Application 11/700,523 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006116 Application 11/700,523 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 16-18, 20-22, and 24-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “an apparatus and method for synchronizing a wireless data processing device with a wireless messaging service” (Spec. ¶ [0003]). Independent claim 16, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 16. A method comprising: receiving service adjustment data at a data center from a messaging service to adjust a wireless data service between the messaging service and a wireless device; and the data center modifying routing connections to deliver service specific messages between the wireless device and the messaging service by adding a first routing connection if first service adjustment data indicates the addition of a first service and deleting a second routing connection if second service adjustment data indicates an elimination of a second service. REFERENCE and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 16-18, 20-22, and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Lewis (US 7,010,303 B2, March 07, 2006). Appeal 2010-006116 Application 11/700,523 3 ANALYSIS Appellants argue claims 16-18, 20-22, and 24-26 together (App. Br. 7). Thus, we select claim 16 as the representative claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv). Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding Lewis teaches all of Appellants’ claim limitations, particularly “receiving service adjustment data at a data center from a messaging service to adjust a wireless data service between the messaging service and a wireless device” (App. Br. 9). Appellants then contend Lewis discloses a wireless router coupled to a plurality of host services or host systems and Figure 4 of Lewis, shows the wireless router includes a registration services support element (App. Br. 8; Reply Br 4). Thus, Appellants argue, Lewis specifies a wireless router, rather than the hosts, modify routing connections (App. Br. 8-9). The Examiner finds Lewis teaches a wireless device accessing a network to ascertain service adjustments and Appellants do not identify what “service adjustment data” is, except it can be added or deleted from the wireless device (Ans. 5-6). Likewise, Appellants do not identify any definition of a “data center” or “messaging service” (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds due to the broad scope of Appellants’ claims, the interpretation of Lewis is consistent with Appellants’ disclosure (Ans. 6-7). Further, we find, even if the Examiner misinterpreted the claim language as Appellants assert (Reply Br. 3) and the registration sever is not at the wireless router, i. e., the messaging service is not at the data center, Lewis still teaches this alternate interpretation (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4; Ans. 6; Lewis ¶¶ [0039]-[0041]). Additionally, it should be noted that structural features argued by Appellants in the Reply Brief have no bearing on our analysis as the location Appeal 2010-006116 Application 11/700,523 4 of the elements does not limit their function. Appellants have not shown how the claimed method is different from Lewis, and thus, have not shown error in the Examiner’s reasoned findings of anticipation. We therefore sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 16, and claims 17, 18, 20-22, and 24-26, not argued separately. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16-18, 20-22, and 24-26 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation