Ex Parte Griffin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 201612855972 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/855,972 08/13/2010 95866 7590 03/23/2016 Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P,L, 551 NW 77th street Suite 111 Boca Raton, FL 33487 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chris Michael GRIFFIN 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. 1400-115U 1077 EXAMINER AHMED, MOHAMMED ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2016 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): ptoboca@fggbb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRIS MICHAEL GRIFFIN, DAVID JARAY HANSON, PHILIP VON HATTEN, and MICHAEL RAO Appeal2014-003372 Application 12/855,972 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Research In Motion Limited as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-003372 Application 12/855,972 INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to methods and apparatus for managing notifications for service events. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A communications method comprising: opening a communication channel between a service event source and an event management platform; at the event management platform, generating a request to the service event source, the request including information associated with the communication channel and requested event information related to a plurality of services offered by the service event source for a mobile wireless device associated with . . a given service user; sending the request to the service event source; maintaining the communication channel open to receive notifications transmitted from the service event source including requested event information related to the plurality of services offered by the service event source and related to the single service user; providing the notifications to the mobile wireless device associated with the given service user. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-22, and 24--28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Conneely (US 2003/0050046; published Mar. 13, 2003). Claims 2, 9, 16, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Conneely and common practices in the art. 2 Appeal2014-003372 Application 12/855,972 Claims 7, 14, 21, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Conneely and Yajnik et al. (US 2004/0076155; published Apr. 22, 2004).2 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner has erred. With respect to anticipation of claim 1, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that the step of "maintaining the communication channel open to receive notifications transmitted from the service event source including requested event information related to the plurality of services offered by the service event source and related to the single service user," recited in claim 1, is found, either expressly or inherently, in Conneely. App. Br. 6-11; Reply Br. 2--4. Although the Examiner has identified several possible communication channels in Conneely, the Examiner has not identified with sufficient clarity where Conneely teaches that a communication channel, opened between a service event source and an event management platform, is maintained open to receive notifications from the service event source, as claim 1 requires. See Final Act. 2-3 (citing Conneely i-fi-f 17, 22, 33-34, Figs. 1 and 2); Final Act. 7-8 (citing Conneely i-fi-133-36, Fig. 2); Ans. 4 (citing Conneely i-f 17, Fig. 1). 2 The Examiner inadvertently included claims 7, 14, 21, and 28 in the statement of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection, as applied to claim I. 3 Appeal2014-003372 Application 12/855,972 In particular, we find that the Examiner's explanation in the Answer that, in Conneely, "all requests to the device cluster 120 which travel through unguided communication medium 124 have to be over an open channel (an allocated channel)" is insufficient to show that the communication channel between the service event source and event management platform previously identified by the Examiner is maintained open to receive notifications transmitted from the service event source. See Ans. 4; see also Final Act 2-3, 7-8. We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner's further line of reasoning that, because Conneely involves a wireless system, "a channel has to be allocated for use by a wireless device (i.e. maintained open)," does not make up for the above-noted deficiency in Conneely' s teachings with respect to anticipating the subject matter of claim 1. See Ans. 4; Reply Br. 2. On the record before us, because the Examiner has not identified in Conneely the disputed claim limitations, we are persuaded that the Examiner has erred in finding that Conneely anticipates the subject matter of claim 1, as well as independent claims 8, 15, and 22, which recite similar limitations. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-22, and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Additionally, because the Examiner has not pointed to any teaching in Y ajnik or knowledge in the art to overcome the noted deficiencies of Conneely, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16, 21, 23, and 28. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-28 is reversed. 4 Appeal2014-003372 Application 12/855,972 REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation