14132748 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)

Ex Parte Hua et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2018

14132748 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/132,748 12/18/2013 46363 7590 09/05/2018 Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC Nokia 12 Christopher Way Suite 105 Eatontown, NJ 07724 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Suzann Hua 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. 813706 4933 EXAMINER HANNAN,BMM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2644 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 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): docketing@trbklaw.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUZANN HUA and YIGANG CAI Appeal2018-000240 Application 14/132,748 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed April 14, 2017, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed June 19, 2017, the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed September 21, 2017, and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed October 9, 2017. 2 The real party in interest is listed as "Alcatel Lucent, which is now part of Nokia." Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2018-000240 Application 14/132,748 Invention Appellants' invention relates to a technique for correlating a thread of Short Message Service (SMS) messages. See Spec. 1: 8-18. This is achieved by inserting an original event request identifier (ID) in a Mobile Originated (MO) SMS messages. Spec. 2: 1-9. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis: 1. A method for requesting information from a remote device, the method comprising: sending a request toward a remote device from a network element, the request including a data request and an event request identifier (ID), wherein the event request ID uniquely identifies an event request; and receiving a response from the remote device at the network element, the response including information requested and the event request ID. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Natarajan Ganesan Fu Macwan Wilson Boudreau Yang US 2002/0156882 Al US 2007/0220148 Al US 2009/0248644 Al US 2011/0151897 Al US 2013/0179503 Al US 2014/0376426 Al US 2015/0208214 Al The Rejections Oct. 24, 2002 Sept. 20, 2007 Oct. 1, 2009 June 23, 2011 July 11, 2013 Dec. 25, 2014 July 23, 2015 Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(2) as anticipated by Wilson. Final Act. 6-12. Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Wilson and Yang. Final Act. 13-15. Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Wilson and Boudreau. Final Act. 15-1 7. 2 Appeal2018-000240 Application 14/132,748 Claims 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Wilson and Natarajan. Final Act. 17-19. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Wilson and Ganesan. Final Act. 19-20. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Wilson and Macwan. Final Act. 20. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Wilson and Fu. Final Act. 20-21. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER WILSON Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12 Regarding representative claim 1, 3 the Examiner finds Wilson discloses sending a request that includes "a data request and an event identifier (ID)." Final Act. 6-7 (citing Wilson ,r,r 4, 6, 10, 22, 32). The Examiner maps Wilson's event notification message to the recited "data request" (Final Act. 6; Ans. 3) and Wilson's unique message identifier to the recited "event request identifier (ID)" (Final Act. 7; Ans. 3). Appellants argue Wilson discloses sending event notification messages ( e.g., a notification of a request for assistance), not a data request, to a recipient. Appeal Br. 11-12 (citing Wilson ,r,r 4--5, 31-32, Fig. 7); Reply Br. 3. Appellants also contend Wilson does not disclose an event request ID which "uniquely identifies an event request" but rather a unique message identity. Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4. 3 Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12 are argued as a group. Appeal Br. 11-13. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal2018-000240 Application 14/132,748 ISSUE Under Â§ 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Wilson discloses "sending a request ... , the request including a data request and an event request identifier (ID), wherein the event request ID uniquely identifies an event request"? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of error. At the outset, we agree with Appellants that claim 1 requires the network element to send the event request ID. Reply Br. 2. That is, claim 1 recites "sending a request ... from a network element, the request including a data request and an event request identifier (ID)." Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). Even so, in contrast with Appellants' assertion, Examiner's erroneous claim construction does result in an improper "basis for maintaining the rejection of Appellant's claim 1." Reply Br. 2. Wilson discloses sending an outgoing event notification message to recipient(s). Wilson ,r,r 4, 6, cited in Final Act. 6- 7. Whether or not Wilson's event notification message is a request including a data request, as recited and as argued distinguishes claim 1 from Wilson, we tum to the Specification. The Specification states "an event trigger request MT (Mobile Terminated) SMS message" includes an event request ID. Spec. 1 :25-2: 1. Thus, at least one portion of Appellants' disclosure equates a message with a request. Moreover, the Specification discusses various requests (e.g., charging, trigger, and SMS request) (Spec. 4:1-35) but does not limit "a request" to a specific type. As such, in light of the Specification, there is no clear distinction between "a request" and a message. 4 Appeal2018-000240 Application 14/132,748 Wilson states the event notification message can be an electronic message ( e.g., an email) sent to one or more recipients. Wilson ,r 23. The message includes "a body." Wilson ,r 23, p. 5 (claim 1). For example, Wilson discusses the message's body "includes one or more lines of ASCII characters" in addition to "coded event message information block" that can contain event state information. Wilson ,r,r 23, 28-29, 32, Fig. 6. Wilson also discusses "instructions [ can be] included in an event message." Wilson ,r 31. Thus, Wilson discloses data (e.g., ASCII characters or instructions) is included in the message's body. Wilson ,r,r 31-32, cited in Appeal Br. 12. Wilson further discusses the recipients responding "in some appropriate manner" to the message, and such an appropriate response can include "a simple acknowledgement that the event notification message is received, ... an instruction to cancel the event or ... an instruction which escalates the event." Wilson ,r 32; see also Wilson ,r,r 21, 29, p. 5 (claim 1). As such, given the message's body can include instructions and appropriate responses are sent ( e.g., acknowledgement, cancel, or escalate), Wilson discloses embodiments where the message's content (e.g., its body) of an original event notification message requests at least one of multiple, appropriate response (e.g., such as an acknowledgement, cancellation, or escalation) from its recipients. Thus, even assuming without agreeing that some event notifications (e.g., the example of a request for assistance as discussed in Wilson ,r 5, cited in Appeal Br. 5) are not considered to be "a data request" as recited in claim 1, other notifications in Wilson, as explained above, request data responses (e.g., those that result in a response to cancel or escalate an event). Wilson ,r,r 29, 32. Moreover, identity of terrninology between Wilson and 5 Appeal2018-000240 Application 14/132,748 claim 1 's language is not required to teach the limitations. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We thus disagree Wilson fails to disclose, at least in some embodiments, its event notification message is "a request ... including a data request" as recited in claim 1. Wilson further discloses inserting a unique message ID with the outgoing message/request. Wilson ,r 6. Appellants argue an ID is not "an event request identifier (ID)" which "uniquely identifies an event request" but rather is a unique message identifier. Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded. First, an "event" is defined broadly to include "[ a ]n action or occurrence, often generated by the user, to which a program might respond-for example key presses, button clicks, or mouse movements. "4 Generating an event notification message in Wilson is an action or occurrence to which a program (e.g., processing module 36 of Event Notification System (ENS) 31) responds. Wilson i-fi-f 21, 23, 31-32, Figs. 3, 7 A. Second, as previously discussed, the event notification message is a request related to an event/action in some embodiments and can therefore be considered an "event request identifier (ID)" as broadly as recited. Wilson therefore discloses some of the event notification messages are requests associated with an event/action and thus the message ID associated with the request is also "an event request identifier" as broadly as recited in claim 1. Moreover, the response from a recipient discussed above similarly includes "the event request ID" because, as noted by the Examiner, the unique message ID, which as explained can be an event request ID, is part of the response. Wilson ,r 32, Fig. 7 A (step 8), cited in Final Act. 7; Wilson ,r,r 24, 29. 4 Event, THE MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 198 (5th ed. 2002). 6 Appeal2018-000240 Application 14/132,748 For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12, which are not separately argued. Claims 13 and 16 Independent claim 13 is separately argued from independent claim 1. For this claim, Appellants repeat the arguments for claim 1. Appeal Br. 14--15. We are not persuaded for reasons previously stated. Appellants additionally assert Wilson does not disclose both the first and the second requests "each include the same event request ID" (Appeal Br. 15 (underlining omitted)). In the Final Action, the Examiner states Wilson discloses (1) "sending a first request" when "transmit[ting] event message [ sending request as claimed] to recipient Devices [ remote device as claimed]" (Final Act. 9 (bolding and italics omitted) ( citing Wilson ,r 32); Ans. 5) and (2) "sending a second request" step when "transmit[ting] event message [ sending request as claimed] to recipient Devices [ where one of the recipient devices is interpreted as second remote device as claimed], see Fig. 7A/step 7, Para. [0032]" (Final Act. 10 (bolding and some italics omitted); Ans. 5---6). In other words, the Examiner determines the event message, which includes a unique message ID (Wilson ,r,r 20, 31-32), is sent to multiple recipients in step 7 of Figure 7 A and the first request in Wilson is the event message sent to a first recipient and the second request in Wilson is the event message sent to a second recipient. See Final Act. 9-10. 5 As discussed above, Wilson discloses an event notification message can be a data request and can include an event request ID as recited in claim 5 Wilson states instructions in the message can differ "depending upon the recipient device." Wilson ,r 31. 7 Appeal2018-000240 Application 14/132,748 13. Moreover, when sending the event message notification having the unique ID to multiple recipients, Wilson discloses both a first request sent to a first recipient and a second request sent to a second recipient include the same event request ID ( e.g., the unique message ID associated with the event notification message) as broadly as recited. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 13 and dependent claim 16, which is not separately argued. Claim 19 For independent claim 19, Appellants repeat the arguments made for claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 11-13, with Appeal Br. 16-18. Accordingly, for similar reasons to those discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 19. THE REMAINING REJECTIONS For the remaining claims, Appellants state the rejections are "predicated on the validity of the rejection[s] of Appellant's independent claims 1," 13, and 19. Appeal Br. 18; Appeal Br. 19-20. These arguments are unavailing for the reasons already discussed. We thus sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 19 underÂ§ 102 and claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. 8 Appeal2018-000240 Application 14/132,748 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent Appeal No. Notice of References Cited 14/132,748 2018-000240 Examiner Art Unit 2644 Page 1 of 1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name Classification A US- B US- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name Classification N 0 p Q R s T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) u Microsoft Computer Dictionary 198 (5th ed. 2002) V w X *A copy of this reference 1s not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP Â§ 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. ; I I . MicrosoftÂ· Microso.fta . om uter â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ i 1c 1onar ; I I ; _:" I i l I I ! Fifth Edition PUBLISHED BY Microsoft Press A Division of Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, Washington 98052-6399 Copyright Â© 2002 by Microsoft Corporation All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Control Number: 2002019714 Microsoft Press books are available through booksellers and distributors worldwide. For further informa- tion about international editions, contact your local Microsoft Corporation office or contact Microsoft Press International directly at fax (425) 936-7329. Visit our Web site at www.microsoft.com/mspress. Send comments to mspinput@microsoft.com. Active Desktop, Active Directory, ActiveMovie, ActiveStore, ActiveSync, ActiveX, Authenticode, BackOffice, BizTalk, ClearType, Direct3D, DirectAnimation, DirectDraw, Directlnput, DirectMusic, DirectPlay, DirectShow, DirectSound, DirectX, Entourage, FoxPro, FrnntPage, Hotmail, IntelliEye, IntelliMouse, IntelliSense, JScript, MapPoint, Microsoft, Microsoft Press, Mobile Explorer, MS-DOS, MSN, Music Central, NetMeeting, Outlook, PhotoDraw, PowerPoint, SharePoint, UltimateTV, Visio, Visual Basic, Visual C++, Visual FoxPro, Visual InterDev, Visual J++, Visual SourceSafe, Visual Studio, Win32, Win32s, Windows, Windows Media, Windows NT, Xbox are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Other product and company names mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners. The example companies, organizations, products, domain names, e-mail addresses, logos, people, places, and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real company, organization, product, domain name, e-mail address, logo, person, place, or event is intended or should be inferred. Acquisitions Editor: Alex Blanton Project Editor: Sandra Haynes Body Part No. XOS-41929 ratings for computer games and other interactive products such as Web sites, online games, and interactive chat. e--tail n. See e-commerce. e-text n. Short for electronic text. A book or other text-based work that is available on line in an electronic media format. An e-text can be read online or downloaded to a user's computer for offline reading. See also e-zine. Ethernet n. 1. The IEEE 802.3 standard for contention networks. Ethernet uses a bus or star topology and relies on the form of access known as Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) to regulate communication line traffic. Network nodes are linked by coaxial cable, by fiberoptic cable, or by twisted-pair wir- ing. Data is transmitted in variable-length frames contain- ing delivery and control information and up to 1500 bytes of data The Ethernet standard provides for baseband transmission at 10 megabits (10 million bits) per second and is available in various forms, including those known as Thin Ethernet, Thick Ethernet, 10Base2, 10Base5, lOBase-F, and 10Base-T. The IEEE standard dubbed 802.3z, or Gigabit Ethernet, operates at 10 times 100 Mbps speed. See also ALOHAnet, baseband, bus network, coaxial cable, contention, CSMA/CD, Gigabit Ethernet, IEEE 802 standards, twisted-pair cable. 2. A widely used local area network system developed by Xerox in 1976, from which the IEEE 802.3 standard was developed. Ethernetf 802.3 n. The IEEE standard for 10- or 100-Mbps transmissions over an Ethernet network. Ether- net/802.3 defines both hardware and data packet construc- tion specifications. See also Ethernet. E-time n. See execution time. etiquette n. See netiquette. ETX n. See end-of-text. Eudora n. An e-mail client program originally developed as freeware for Macintosh computers by Steve Dorner at the University of Illinois, now maintained in both freeware and commercial versions for both Macintosh and Win- dows by Qualcomm, Inc. EULA n. See End-User License Agreement. Euphoria n. Acronym for End User Programming with Hierarchical Objects for Robust Interpreted Applications. An interpreted programming language intended for gen- eral application development and game programming on MS-DOS, Windows, and Linux platforms. 198 European Computer Manufacturers Association n. See ECMA. European Laboratory for Particle Physics n. See CERN. EUV lithography n. Acronym for Extreme Ultra Violet lithography. Manufacturing process allowing smaller cir- cuits to be etched onto chips than is possible with tradi- tional lithographic techniques. With this process, it is possible to economically produce chips that are much faster than those that are created using traditional pro- cesses. In EUV lithography, the image of a map of circuits to appear on a chip is bounced off a series of mirrors that condense the image. The condensed image is projected onto wafers containing layers of metal, silicon, and photo-Â· sensitive material. Because EUV light has a short wave- length, extremely intricate circuit patterns can be created on the wafers. evaluation n. The determination, by a program, of the value of an expression or the action that a program state- ment specifies. Evaluation can take place at compile time or at run time. even parity n. See parity. event n. An action or occurrence, often generated by the user, to which a program might respond-for example, key presses, button clicks, or mouse movements. See also event-driven programming. event-driven adj. Of, pertaining to, or being software that accomplishes its purpose by responding to externally caused events, such as the user pressing a key or clicking a button on a mouse. For example, an event-driven data entry form will allow the user to click on and edit any field at any time rather than forcing the user to step through a fixed sequence of prompts. event-driven processing n. A program feature belong- ing to more advanced operating-system architectures such as the Apple Macintosh operating system, Windows, and UNIX. In times past, programs were required to interro- gate, and effectively anticipate, every device that was expected to interact with the program, such as the key- board, mouse, printer, disk drive, and serial port. Often, unless sophisticated programming techniques were used, one of two events happening at the same instant would be lost. Event processing solves this problem through the cre- ation and maintenance of an event queue, Most common events that occur are appended to the event queue for the program to process in tum; however, certain types of events can preempt others if they have 'a higher priority. A ci to w fc fr in Cl "' a1 8' c: 2 ai Cl o: rr d SJ ,.., c: .h a e b l( t( 1 A e n e i1 s a e i1 C E C