Ex Parte Harvey et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201613552475 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/552,475 07/18/2012 25537 7590 05/25/2016 VERIZON PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Richard Lee Harvey 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. 20060408Cl 8218 EXAMINER GAO, JING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2016 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): patents@verizon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD LEE HARVEY and JOHN FRANK PAWLIK Appeal2014-008710 1 Application 13/552,475 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-24, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Cellco Partnership d/b/ a Verizon Wireless. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-008710 Application 13/552,475 Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a wireless communications system within a pico cell 11 in an aircraft 13 in flight requiring a security access code, assigned to an aircraft travel segment and given to the user after takeoff, to be provided by the user through the user's communications station 17 for validation before the system permits operation of the user's communications station on board the aircraft 13 in flight. See Abstract, Spec. ,-r 24. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. A method of operating a pico cell system in a vehicle capable of providing wireless communications for mobile stations of users riding in the vehicle, comprising: assigning a security access code to correspond to a scheduled travel segment of the vehicle, wherein said security access code is a common code to be input by each of a plurality of the mobile station users for validation before communication is permitted, and the security access code assigned to correspond to the scheduled travel segment of the vehicle is valid only for the scheduled travel segment; only after travel of the vehicle over the segment commences, providing the security access code assigned to correspond to the scheduled travel segment of the vehicle, to people riding in the vehicle, including the users of the mobile stations; receiving an input code from each of a plurality of the mobile stations, in the pico cell system, during the travel of the vehicle over the segment; 2 Appeal2014-008710 Application 13/552,475 comparing each received input code to the security access code; and denying wireless communication service through the pico cell system in the vehicle, to any one of the plurality of mobile stations upon the comparison failing to produce a match of the input code received from the one mobile station to said security access code assigned to correspond to the scheduled travel segment of the vehicle. Zicker Prior Art Relied Upon US 6,314,286 Bl Nov. 6, 2001 Mar. 9, 2006 Ra vikumar et al. ("Ra vikumar") Lovell, JR. ("Lovell") Usher US 2006/0050700 Al US 2006/0074814 Al Apr. 6, 2006 EP 1 146 752 Al Oct. 17, 2001 Wi-Fi Alliance, Wi-Fi Protected Access: Strong, Standards-Based, Interoperable Security for Today's Wi-Fi Networks, Apr. 29, 2003 ("Wi-Fi"). Rejections on Appeal Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections: Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 15-17, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lovell, Zicker, and Wi-Fi. Final Act. 3-11. Claims 3-7, 11, 12, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lovell, Zicker, Wi- Fi, and Usher. Final Act. 11-14. 3 Appeal2014-008710 Application 13/552,475 Claims 13, 14, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lovell, Zicker, Wi-Fi, Usher, and Ravikumar. Final Act. 14--15. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7-13, and the Reply Brief, pages 1--4.2 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lovell, Zicker, and Wi-Fi teaches or suggests assigning a security access code to correspond to a scheduled travel segment of the vehicle, wherein said security access code is a common code to be input by each of a plurality of the mobile station users for validation before communication is permitted, and the security access code assigned to correspond to the scheduled travel segment of the vehicle is valid only for the scheduled travel segment; only after travel of the vehicle over the segment commences, providing the security access code assigned to correspond to the scheduled travel segment of the vehicle, to people riding in the vehicle, including the users of the mobile stations, as recited in claim 1? 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 1, 2014) (App. Br.), the Reply Brief (filed July 28, 2014) (Reply Br.), the Answer (mailed May 27, 2014) (Ans.) and the Final Office Action (mailed September 13, 2013) (Final Act.) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012). 4 Appeal2014-008710 Application 13/552,475 Appellants first argue the proffered combination of references does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 7- 8; Reply Br. 1. Appellants contend the temporary user ID taught in Lovell and the password taught in Wi-Fi are not connected to a travel segment of a vehicle. App. Br. 7. Appellants further assert the temporary user ID in Lovell is based on an arbitrary time period defined by the user. App. Br. 7- 8. Appellants note the security access code is recited in the claim to be valid for only the scheduled travel segment. App. Br. 8. Appellants moreover argue the combination of Lovell and Zicker suggests the user is allowed to communicate in an arbitrary time period unrelated to the travel segment. App. Br. 8. Appellants additionally contend the time period taught in Lovell is not restricted based on the travel segment of a vehicle. Reply Br. 1. At the outset, we note Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Lovell teaches assigning a temporary user ID and password as a secure access code to a user to input into user's mobile station for validation before communication is permitted via a hotspot. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 1; Ans. 3 (citing Lovell i-fi-120, 21, 31, and 42). Appellants further do not rebut the Examiner's finding that Wi-Fi teaches a "pre-shared key" (PSK) as a single common temporary user ID/password of Lovell to be input by a plurality of mobile station users for validation. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2; Ans. 4. Additionally, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Zicker teaches a wireless communication environment in an aircraft enabled when the aircraft is in flying mode during a scheduled travel segment. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 1-2; Ans. 3--4 (citing Zicker col. 9, 11. 65----67, col. 10, 11. 1- 39, col. 11, 11. 58----67, Figs. 2, 9). We agree with the Examiner that 5 Appeal2014-008710 Application 13/552,475 Appellants' arguments individually attack the Lovell, WiFi, and Zicker references. Ans. 3. Although the temporary user ID/password of the hotspot taught by Lovell is not connected to a travel segment of a vehicle, as argued by Appellants (App. Br. 7), the Examiner nonetheless relies upon the miniature wireless communication environment located in an aircraft of Zicker to modify the physical location of the hotspot of Lovell. Ans. 3--4. The combination of temporary user ID/password of the hotspot of Lovell, the PSK of WiFi, and the wireless communication environment located in an aircraft of Zicker results in a temporary user ID/password that is valid only during the scheduled travel segment when the aircraft is flying because wireless communication is not enabled outside of the scheduled travel segment. Ans. 4. This result occurs even if the user in Lovell selected a time period for the hotspot exceeding the scheduled travel segment, as Appellants argue. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 1. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's findings that the proffered combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Second, Appellants contend the temporary user ID/password as taught in Lovell and the PSK of WiFi, as passwords, are not needed in Zicker. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3. Specifically, Appellants argue the mobile stations in Zicker are controlled by a controller of the pico cell without the need for the user entering a password. App. Br. 10 (citing Zicker col. 9, 11. 33--43). Appellants further assert a password would make the system resulting from the combination of Lovell, Zicker, and WiFi more complex. App. Br. 10, 12; Reply Br. 4. Appellants additionally argue Zicker teaches away from using a phone password because the controller enables the pico cell itself 6 Appeal2014-008710 Application 13/552,475 rather than individual phones. App. Br. 10. Appellants moreover assert that the capability of Zicker's system to be modified does not provide motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify it. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants' arguments regarding combining a password with Zicker are unavailing. The Examiner correctly finds Zicker teaches a security measure to control mobile phones to access the pico cell. Ans. 5. Zicker teaches an identity code comprising the telephone number of the user's service and the electronic serial number of the user's radiotelephone. Zicker col 8, 1. 62 - col. 9, 1. 1 ). Zicker teaches that this identity code is required for validating and establishing roaming mode to the radiotelephone. Zicker col. 9, 11. 25- 32. We, thus, find Zicker establishes a need for a password in the form of an identity code. Appellants' argument that using a password would not have been obvious because it would make the system more complex is not persuasive because Appellants have not shown how having the user enter a password in combination with the security measure in Zicker is not within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Additionally, Appellants' argument that Zicker teaches away from a password is unavailing because Appellants have merely pointed out that Zicker does not use a password, rather than directed us to disclosure within Zicker that discredits the use of password. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[T]he prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ... )." Third, Appellants assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the common password of WiFi with the temporary user ID 7 Appeal2014-008710 Application 13/552,475 for a single user of Lovell. App. Br. 11. In particular, Appellants note Lovell teaches a specific password for a specific user that has paid for services. App. Br. 11 (citing Lovell i-fi-120, 21, 31, and 42). Appellants additionally note WiFi teaches a common password allowing multiple users to utilize the same network. App. Br. 11. Appellants then argue "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not have a user pay to utilize the network, and then issue a common password that allows other users (some of which may not have paid) to utilize the network for free." App. Br. 11. Appellants point out that a common password paid for by one user frustrates Lovell's system because other users with the common password would use the network service for free. Reply Br. 3. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner finds that the PSK in WiFi is given only to certain, authorized users to utilize the network. Ans. 5---6. WiFi teaches the PSK is distributed to users in a small office or home office environment (SOHO). WiFi p. 6. This teaching in WiFi at least suggests the employer of the users in the SOHO has paid for the users to utilize the network. Id. Zicker teaches "a technique for providing telecommunication services to subscriber-provided radiotelephones residing in [the] aircraft .... " Zicker col. 3, 11. 63---65. This description in Zicker at least suggests passengers who have a paid ticket to enter the aircraft for a flight are authorized to access telecommunications services for that flight. Id. We, thus, find unavailing Appellants' arguments that Lovell in combination with Zicker and WiFi frustrates Lovell's system because the result of the combination in which a user pays for access to the network for only one user that is actually used by 8 Appeal2014-008710 Application 13/552,475 other users (Reply Br. 4) is not factually supported. Both Zicker and WiFi teach network usage intended for certain authorized users, not just a single user, available to those users. Fourth, Appellants contend there is no teaching in either Lovell of distributing the temporary user ID/password, or WiFi of distributing of the PSK, based on flight commencement. App. Br. 11. Appellants moreover argue these references teach distribution at the time of purchase. App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds the system of Lovell "generates a temporary User ID 126 and Password 128 (or credentials) that are unique to [the user] and which are configured to expire/ die at the end of the requested access interval .... " Lovell i-f 31 (cited in Final Act. 3). Lovell further teaches the user may gain access to the hotspot upon receiving the temporary user ID and password. Lovell i-f 42 (cited in Final Act. 3). These portions of Lovell at least suggest that the user receives the temporary user ID and password before the requested access interval. However, Lovell does not preclude the requested access interval commencing at a time delayed after purchase. See Lovell i-f 44. The Examiner finds Zicker teaches the aircraft-based cellular network is enabled when the aircraft is flying. Zicker col. 10, 11. 28-31 (cited in Final Act. 4-5). We, thus, find no Examiner error in combining Lovell and Zicker to suggest distributing the temporary user ID and password when the aircraft starts flying. Fifth, Appellants argue the Examiner's "[a]ttempts ... to explain a rationale for combining the applied references are inappropriate and based on hindsight." App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellants argue Zicker solves the problem of providing quality phone service to 9 Appeal2014-008710 Application 13/552,475 passengers in flight and preventing interference with the operation of the aircraft without a password/ID. App. Br. 12. Appellants additionally assert the Examiner "has not provided evidence to support the combination of the references in the specific manner recited in the claims .... " App. Br. 12. The Examiner finds motivation to combine Zicker and WiFi to provide security in accessing the pico cell. Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds motivation to combine Lovell and WiFi to allow devices with the correct password to utilize network resources. Ans. 6. Appellants have not shown incompatibility of systems using common passwords with systems using unique passwords. Reply Br. 4. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination is supported by sufficient rational underpinning (Ans. 6) because the cited references disclose prior art elements that perform their ordinary functions to predictably result in operating a pico cell system in a vehicle capable of providing wireless communications for mobile stations of users riding in the vehicle. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Hence, we find the cumulative weight and the totality of the evidence on this record reasonably support the Examiner's finding that the combined disclosures of Lovell, Zicker, and WiFi teach or suggest the disputed limitations. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find Appellants have not provided arguments or evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. It therefore follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Lovell, Zicker, and WiFi renders claim 1 unpatentable. 10 Appeal2014-008710 Application 13/552,475 Regarding the rejection of claim 3, Appellants argue the Examiner relies on Lovell to teach both a common password and a unique PIN. App. Br. 13. The Examiner finds the combination of Lovell, Zicker, and WiFi does not teach assigning a PIN code for the user of the mobile station and correlating the PIN code to the user and to a seat assignment within the vehicle for the identified user. Ans. 7. The Examiner relies on Lovell to teach granting hotspot access to a user with a temporary user ID and password. Ans. 7 (citing Lovell i-fi-120, 21, 31, and 42). Contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner relies upon Usher, not Lovell, to teach the PIN code for the user. Ans. 7-8 (citing Usher i-fi-137-39). Appellants do not dispute these findings. App. Br. 13. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 3. Regarding the rejections of claims 2 and 4--24, to the extent Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above (App. Br. 12-13), claims 2 and 4--24 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-24. 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 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation