Ex Parte Gan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

11834777 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111834,777 08/07/2007
37945 7590 06/02/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yi Min Gan
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CN920060064US 1 1286
EXAMINER
COSBY, LAWRENCE V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YI MIN GAN, LING JIN, QING TAO SUN, and ZHE XIANG 1
Appeal2014-006597
Application 11/834,777
Technology Center 2400
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-19. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. Br. 2.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed June 25, 2013 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed November 6, 2013 ("Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed February 26, 2014 ("Ans."); and the
Specification filed August 7, 2007 ("Spec.").
Appeal2014-006597
Application 11/834,777
THE CLAHvIED TI'-JVENTION
According to Appellants' Specification, "[t]he present invention
relates in general to information authentication technology fields.
Specifically, the present invention relates to a device and method of sending
and receiving a message." Spec. 1. Independent claim 1 is directed to a
message receiving device; independent claim 7 is directed to a message
sending device; independent claims 10 and 16 are directed to methods; and
independent claim 19 is directed to a computer program product. Br. 23-31
(Claims Appendix). Claim 1 recites:
A message receiving device, comprising:
a service bus;
one or more memory elements, having computer
executable instructions stored thereon;
one or more processors, wherein the one or more
processors executes the computer executable instructions to
perform the steps of:
storing, in the one or more memory elements registration
information of services registered by a message receiving device
with a service provider from a message sending device;
receiving a message of service sent by the message
sending device and provided by the service provider;
using registration information of services registered with
the service provider stored in the one or more memory elements,
authenticating whether the message is sent by a service registered
with the service provider stored in the one or more memory
elements;
in response to the message being sent by the service
registered with the service provider stored in the message
receiving device, accepting the message and sending an
acknowledgement of success of receiving the message and an
indication of acceptance of a charge for the message; and
in response to the message not being sent by the service
registered with the service provider stored in the message
receiving device, discarding the message and not sending an
indication of acceptance of a charge for the message.
2
Appeal2014-006597
Application 11/834,777
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Goodman et al. (US 2004/0019645 Al, published Jan. 29,
2004) ("Goodman") and Ergezinger et al. (US 2004/0139204 Al, published
July 15, 2004) ("Ergezinger"). Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1-19 in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in the Appeal Brief. We are not persuaded that
Appellants identify error. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings,
reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in the Final Office Action (Final Act.
2-25) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-29). We highlight the following
for emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellants argue the cited combination of references fails to teach or
suggest, "storing, in the one or more memory elements registration
information of services registered by a message receiving device with a
service provider from a message sending device," as recited in claim 1. Br.
17. The Examiner relies on Goodman as teaching this limitation. Ans. 26;
Final Act. 2, 7. The Examiner's Answer and the Final Office Action contain
detailed findings and citations to Figure 5 and multiple passages in
Goodman that Appellants fail to address in the Appeal Brief. 3 Thus,
Appellants fail to provide a persuasive showing as to how the Examiner
erred.
3 There is no Reply Brief.
3
Appeal2014-006597
Application 11/834,777
And, in the Appeal Brief, Appellants acknowledge Goodman teaches
saving of subscriber information but argue that saving of subscriber
information is described as optional in Goodman and that Goodman's
"subscriber information" is not the same as the claimed "registration
information." Br. 17. Neither of these arguments is persuasive.
Finally, we note in the "Background Art" section of the Specification,
Appellants acknowledge, "telecommunication operators ... will store
receiving end users' registration information in the operating platform of
telecommunications operators and will authenticate each message of service
from the service provide[r] to ensure that end users who receive the message
have indeed registered or subscribed the services." Spec. 1. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments relating to the "storing" limitation.
Appellants argue the cited combination of references fails to teach or
suggest, "receiving a message of service sent by the message sending device
and provided by the service provider," as recited in claim 1. Br. 18.
Appellants' argument relating to this limitation relies on unrecited features
(message filtering criteria and filtering operations) and is not commensurate
with the scope of claim 1. Br. 18. In addition, Appellants fail to explain
how the common elements recited in the limitation distinguish claim 1 from
the prior art. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument relating to the
"receiving" limitation.
Appellants argue the cited combination of references fails to teach or
suggest, "using registration information of services registered with the
service provider stored in the one or more memory elements, authenticating
whether the message is sent by a service registered with the service provider
stored in the one or more memory elements," as recited in claim 1. Br. 18-
4
Appeal2014-006597
Application 11/834,777
19. Specifically, Appellants argue Goodman fails to teach "authenticating
whether the message is sent by a service registered with the service
provider." Br. 19. But, Appellants fail to explain how or why the term
"authenticating" should be construed so as to distinguish claim 1 from the
cited art. Id. Appellants provide no definition or interpretation of
"authenticating." Id. In contrast, with regard to this limitation, the
Examiner provides detailed findings and cites multiple passages in
Goodman. Ans. 27-28; Final Act. 3, 7. And, we again note in the
"Background Art" section of the Specification, Appellants acknowledge,
"telecommunication operators ... will store receiving end users' registration
information in the operating platform of telecommunications operators and
will authenticate each message of service from the service provide[r] to
ensure that end users who receive the message have indeed registered or
subscribed the services." Spec. 1. We are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments relating to the "authenticating" limitation.
Appellants argue the cited combination of references fails to teach or
suggest, "in response to the message being sent by the service registered
with the service provider stored in the message receiving device, accepting
... the message and an indication of acceptance of a charge for the
message," as recited in claim 1. Br. 20-21. The Examiner cites Goodman
and Ergezinger and provides findings supported by citations to each of these
references. Ans. 28-29; Final Act. 3--4, 7-9. Appellants fail to address the
detailed findings or to explain how the Examiner erred. Br. 20-21. In
addition, Appellants acknowledge, "Ergezinger discloses in the cited portion
' ... the access manager is arranged to verify whether the requested service or
downloadable objects associated with that service has been supplied by the
5
Appeal2014-006597
Application 11/834,777
service provider to the user (terminal) and to only perform the billing upon
confirmation of the delivery ... '" Br. 20. We are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument relating to the "accepting" limitation.
Finally, Appellants rely on arguments previously presented and which
are discussed above to argue the cited references fail to teach or suggest, "in
response to the message not being sent by the service registered with the
service provider stored in the message receiving device, discarding the
message and not sending an indication of acceptance of a charge for the
message," as recited in claim 1. Br. 21. For reasons set forth above, we are
not persuaded by these arguments.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, claim 1 recites a combination of
elements which are well known and Appellants fail to persuade us that the
subject matter of claim 1 would not have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. We sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-19
Appellants rely on the arguments presented in support of claim 1 and
do not present any separate arguments for patentability of claims 2-19. Br.
22. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-19 for the reasons stated
above with regard to claim 1.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-19 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6