Ex Parte Hassan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 21, 201813853235 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/853,235 03/29/2013 89133 7590 05/23/2018 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP (BlackBerry) 250 UNIVERSITY A VENUE 5THFLOOR TORONTO, ON MSH 3E5 CANADA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ahmed E. Hassan 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. 42783-3742 7855 EXAMINER ALMAMUN, ABDULLAH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2431 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2018 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): ipinfo@ridoutmaybee.com ridbee@ridoutmaybee.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex PARTE AHMED E. HASSAN, JOHN F. WILSON, and DARYL JOSEPH MARTIN Appeal2018-000578 Application 13/853 ,23 5 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC B. CHEN, BETH Z. SHAW, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 12-23, 25, 27-38, 40, and 42-68, which represent all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed April 4, 2017 ("App. Br."), Reply Br. filed October 25, 2017, the Examiner's Answer mailed August 25, 2017 ("Ans.") and the Final Office Action mailed September 27, 2016 ("Final Act."). 2 Appellants identify Research In Motion Limited as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4. Appeal2018-000578 Application 13/853,235 We affirm-in-part. INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to enabling sharing of devices with other users without compromising security. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method of controlling access to a device, the method comprising: receiving, via a user input device, a user input selection of one or more impermissible applications from a plurality of applications executable on the device; storing data, the data corresponding to the user input selection of the one or more impermissible applications; receiving, via the user input device, a lock request; and responsive to the receiving the lock request, entering a locked state; wherein, in the locked state, user access is not permitted to the one or more impermissible applications, and user access is permitted to other applications of the plurality of applications. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10, 12-23, 25, 27-38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Russell et al. (US 2005/0138415 Al; published June 23, 2005) ("Russell") and Chebolu et al. (US 2005/0065935 Al; published March 24, 2005) ("Chebolu"). Final Act. 3-20. CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. 2 Appeal2018-000578 Application 13/853,235 Claim 1 Appellants argue the cited references do not receive a lock request via using the same user input device as was used for receiving user selection of impressible applications. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5-12. We are not persuaded by this argument. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Russell teaches that "[ i ]n some embodiments [a] special mode is a special learning mode. In some embodiments the special mode is a special learning mode set up by a parent to lock the system ( computing device) so that a child only has access to educational applications." Ans. 3 ( citing Russell ,II 2 ). We disagree with Appellants' characterization of Russell as only being able to lock the device using hardware. See Reply Br. 6-11. The Examiner explains that Russell describes a lock can also be implemented in software. Ans. 5 ( citing Russell ,r 18 "In some embodiments the lock is implemented as a hardware locking mechanism. In some embodiments the switching and/ or managing of the normal mode and the one or more special modes is implemented in software."). Appellants' argument that the special mode and lock request are completely different concepts in Russell (Reply Br. 11) is inaccurate. Russell explains, for example, in paragraph 14 that "[i]n some embodiments the lock may be moved to a different position to choose between the two or more different special modes." (emphasis added). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions with respect to claim 1 and adopt them as our own. "A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim." 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Further, merely restating with respect to a second claim an argument, previously presented with respect to a first claim, is not an 3 Appeal2018-000578 Application 13/853,235 argument for separate patentability of the two claims. Appellants argue that the following claims stand or fall with claim 1, or present the same or essentially the same arguments as for claim 1 for the following claims: claims 2, 4, 8, 13-18, 23, 28-33, 38, 43-51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, and 68.See App. Br. 19, 20, 22, 13-26, 28-32, 34--47. Therefore, based on Appellants' arguments, we sustain the rejection of these claims. Claim 3 We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Russell fails to teach "displaying the plurality of applications executable in a picklist of applications," as recited in dependent claim 3. App. Br. 20. Appellants provide insufficient evidence to show that the Specification or claims limit a "picklist" in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Russell's teachings. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Russell teaches that the system "may be locked into the special mode so that only certain software is available to the user." Ans. 9 ( citing Russell ,r,r 10, 12). Accordingly, Russell teaches this limitation, and for these reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3. For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejection of claims 21, 36, 52, 55, 58, 61, 64, and 67, for which Appellants present the same argument. See App. Br. 2 7, 3 3, 41- 4 7. Claim 10 Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites that the data includes a plurality of user profiles, wherein each user profile includes an associated set of impermissible applications. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Chebolu teaches the limitations of claim 10 because Chebolu explains that 4 Appeal2018-000578 Application 13/853,235 user profiles are configured such that there are particular applications to which the user is denied access. Ans. 13 (citing Chebolu ,r 56, Fig. 2). Therefore, Chebolu teaches "wherein each user profile includes an associated set of impermissible applications," as recited in claim 10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 10. For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejection of claims 25 and 40, for which Appellants present the same argument. See App. Br. 28, 29, 34. Claims 5-7 and 12 Appellants argue Russell does not teach a "messaging application," "e-mail application," "dynamic list," or "lock icon," as recited in dependent claims 5, 6, 7, and 12, respectively. We agree with Appellants. With respect to claims 5 and 6, although the Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would replace the "Chinese learning application" with an e-mail application or messaging application to come up with the invention, the Examiner does not provide sufficient explanation or evidence to show why this is the case. Similarly, with respect to claim 12, the Examiner does not provide sufficient explanation or evidence to show why one would replace Russell's movement between modes with a lock icon. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 19, 20, 22, 27, 34, 35, 37, and 42, for which Appellants present the same argument. 3 See App. Br.26-28,32,33,35. 3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to reevaluate these claims in view of Chebolu or other prior art. 5 Appeal2018-000578 Application 13/853,235 CONCLUSION We sustain the rejections of claims 1--4, 8, 10, 13-18, 21, 23, 25, 28- 33, 36, 38, 40, and 43-68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 7, 12, 19, 20, 22, 27, 34, 35, 37, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 8, 10, 13-18, 21, 23, 25, 28-33, 36, 38, 40, and 43-68 is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 5, 6, 7, 12, 19, 20, 22, 27, 34, 35, 37, and 42 is reversed. 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-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation