Ex Parte Jacobs et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 8, 201713412948 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/412,948 03/06/2012 Philip C. Jacobs 973577 4017 86421 7590 02/10/2017 Patent Partita 1 Omim - Pisien EXAMINER 2816 Lago Vista Lane Rockwall, TX 75032 MALINOWSKI, WALTER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2439 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/10/2017 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): peggsu @ cisco. com PAIR_86421 @patcapgroup.com eofficeaction @ appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHILIP C. JACOBS and JOHN A. TOEBES Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ERIC S. FRAHM, KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, 11—17, and 19-23. Claim 18 has been objected to as dependent upon a rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claim (Final Act. 36). Claims 3, 7, and 10 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s (i) anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, and 11—13, and (ii) obviousness rejections of claims 14, 17, 19, 20, and 23; we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 15, 16, 21, and 22. We affirm-in-part. Exemplary Claims An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1,14, and 23, which are reproduced below with emphases added: 1. A method comprising: identifying a request for access to a first system; providing a second piece of information to a first device after identifying the request; obtaining a visual image, the visual image including at least a first piece of information associated with the request, wherein the visual image is associated with the first device and obtained using a second device; determining if the at least first piece of information indicates that the access to the first system is to be granted, wherein determining if the at least first piece of information indicates that the access to the first system is to be granted includes implementing a visual recognition algorithm to process 2 Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 the at least first piece of information and wherein determining if the at least first piece of information indicates that the access to the first system is to be granted further includes determining if the at least first piece of information includes the second piece of information; and granting the access to the first system if it is determined that the at least first piece of information indicates that the access to the first system is to be granted. 14. An apparatus comprising: a registration module, the registration module being arranged to obtain a request to access the apparatus; a communications interface, the communications interface being arranged to enable the apparatus to obtain an image captured by a first system, the image including content of a screen, wherein the communications interface is arranged to obtain the image after the request to access the apparatus is obtained; and an image verification module, the image verification module being arranged to determine when the content of the screen is associated with a first device, the image verification module further being arranged to identify the image as being of the first device when it is determined that the content of the screen is associated with the first device, wherein the registration module is arranged to automatically register the first device when it is determined that the content of the screen is associated with the first device. 23. A method comprising: identifying a request for access to a first system; providing access instructions to a first device in response to the request for access to the first system, the first device having a display screen, wherein providing the access instructions to the first device includes specifying a first piece of information to be displayed on the display screen in order to gain access to the first system; obtaining a visual image of the first device; determining whether the visual image of the first device includes an image of the first piece of information displayed on 3 Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 the display screen, wherein determining whether the visual image of the first device includes the image of the first piece of information displayed on the display screen includes implementing a visual recognition algorithm to visually recognize when the visual image of the first device includes the image of the first piece of information displayed on the display screen; granting the access to the first system if it is determined that the visual image of the first device include the image of the first piece of information displayed on the display screen; and denying the access to the first system if it is determined that the visual image of the first device does not include the image of the first piece of information displayed on the display screen. The Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, and 11—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nomura (US 2007/0256118 Al; published Nov. 1,2007). Final Act. 11—22. (2) The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nomura. Final Act. 22—23. (3) The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nomura and Joa (US 2012/0198570 Al; published Aug. 2, 2012). Final Act. 23—26. (4) The Examiner rejected claims 14—17, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nomura and Kasahara (US 2007/0160264 Al; published July 12, 2007). Final Act. 26—36. Principal Issues On Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 11—53) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 12—57), the following issues are presented on appeal: 4 Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 (1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, and 11—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Nomura fails to disclose the first and second device limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 8?1 (2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Nomura fails to disclose or suggest (i) a barcode including a text string or a security code; and/or (ii) a first piece of information including a text string or security code provided to a first device, as recited in dependent claims 21 and 22? (3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Nomura and Joa because Nomura fails to teach or suggest “providing the access instructions to the first device includes specifying a first piece of information to be displayed on the display screen in order to gain access to the first system” as recited in independent claim 23? (4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 14, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Nomura and Kasahara because Nomura fails to teach or suggest (i) an identification of an image being an image a first device; and/or (ii) determining that the screen content is “associated with the first device,” as recited in independent claim 14?2 1 Appellants present arguments primarily as to independent claims 1 and 8 (App. Br. 12—33), argue claims 2, 4—6, and 13 on the same basis, and also present additional arguments for the patentability of claims 2, 4, and 5 (App. Br. 20-25, 52). We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims rejected for anticipation (claims 1, 6, 7—9, and 11—13), and discuss claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 in our analysis. 2 Claims 17, 19, and 20 ultimately depend from independent claim 14, and thus contain the same disputed features as independent claim 14. Based on Appellants’ failure to address the Examiner’s prima facie case of 5 Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 (5) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Nomura and Kasahara because Nomura fails to teach or suggest (i) a “home screen,” as recited in dependent claim 15; and/or (ii) “information associated with the screen associated with the first device,” as recited in dependent claim 16? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 11—36 as modified by Ans. 2—64) in light of Appellants’ contentions in the briefs (App. Br. 11—53; Reply Br. 12—57) that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 15, 16, 21, and 22 (see App. Br. 25—26, 38—39, 44-47). However, with regard to (i) the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, and 11—13 over Nomura; (ii) the obviousness rejection of claim 23 over Nomura; and (iii) the obviousness rejection of claims 14, 17, 19, and 20 over the combination of Nomura and Kasahara, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusions that Nomura discloses, teaches, or suggests the disputed limitations of independent claims 1, 8, 14, and 23. Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, and 11—13 Appellants’ primary argument, that the Examiner relies upon cell phone 10 of Nomura as being both the first and second devices (App. Br. obviousness as to claims 17, 19, and 20 (see generally App. Br. 39-44), Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17, 19, and 20 as being obvious over the combination of Nomura and Kasahara. We select independent claim 14 as representative of the group of claims 14, 17, 19, and 20. We will discuss representative independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15 and 16 in our analysis herein. 6 Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 13—15 (as to claim 1), 28—30 (as to claim 8)), is not persuasive. Although we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 13—15, 28—30) that Nomura’s cell phone cannot be both the first and second device as recited in claims 1 and 8, we also agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 11—17 as modified by Ans. 3—4, 10) that, considering the broadest reasonable interpretation of independent claims 1 and 8, Nomura (e.g., H 247, 256, 256) discloses the recited (i) “first system” (Nomura’s service server 30 and/or direct access management server 40); (ii) “first device” (Nomura’s DVR 20 alone, or in combination with the television screen or display) having a visual image (Nomura’s barcode) associated with it; and (iii) “second device” (Nomura’s cell phone 10) used to obtain the visual image associated with the first device. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, as well as claims 6, 9, and 11—13 grouped therewith. For similar reasons as provided for claim 1, and for the reasons that follow, we also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2, 4, and 5, which ultimately depend from claim 1. With regard to claim 2, we agree with the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 17; Ans. 62—63) that Nomura’s paragraph 65 teaches or suggests the recited limitations. Nomura describes a digital video recorder (DVR) 20 associated with a display or television screen that displays a unique barcode (see 256, 257) that teaches or suggests the recited “visual image is displayed on a display screen of the first device, and wherein the second piece of information is unique content arranged to identify the first device” (claim 2). In addition, we find that paragraph 64 of Nomura discloses “an interface with the DVR 20 . . . such as ... a display.” Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 20—22, 52) that (i) the paragraph 65 fails to teach or 7 Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 suggest any unique content arranged to identify the first device; and (ii) the Examiner provides no rationale or statement as to how Nomura meets the limitations recited in claim 2 are, therefore, not persuasive. With regard to claim 4, we agree with the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 17—18; Ans. 21—22) that Nomura’s paragraph 212 teaches or suggests the recited limitations. Nomura describes a DVR 20 (i.e., the first device or part of the first device) that is granted access to a service server 30 (i.e., a first system or part of a first system). Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 22— 23) that Nomura’s paragraph 212, and using a cell phone to get a title list from DVR 20, is not equivalent to granting a first device access to a first system as recited in claim 4 is, therefore, not persuasive. Nomura’s direct access management server 40 and/or service server 30 teach or suggest the recited “first system.” With regard to claim 5, we agree with the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 18—19; Ans. 21—22) that Nomura’s paragraphs 138, 171, 205, 245, and 272 along with Figure 12 teach or suggest the recited limitations. We agree with the Examiner (see, e.g., Ans. 3—4, 10) that Nomura teaches or suggest a first system (service server 30 and/or direct access management server 40), a first device (DVR 20 and the associated display screen, or just the display screen), and a second device (cell phone 10). Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 23—25) that (i) Nomura’s disclosure of having a direct access management server 40 perform a process when a service server 30 is accessed by cell phone 10 is not equivalent to allowing a cell phone 10 to utilize a service/resource associated with the direct access management server 40; and (ii) Nomura fails to indicate that a first device is allowed to 8 Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 utilize a service or resource associated with a first system are, therefore, not persuasive. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 21 and 22 Dependent claims 21 and 22 are reproduced below with emphases added: 21. The method of claim 1 wherein the second piece of information includes at least one selected from a group including a text string and a security code. 22. The logic of claim 8 wherein the second piece of information includes at least one selected from a group including a text string and a security code. With regard to both claims 21 and 22, Appellants contend (App. Br. 25—26, 38—39) that Nomura’s barcodes described in paragraphs 256 and 257 are not the equivalent, nor suggest, a text string or a security code as claimed. As a result, Appellants contend (App. Br. 25—26), Nomura fails to disclose or suggest a first piece of information including a text string or security code provided to a first device as claimed. We agree with Appellants. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 21 and 22 over Nomura. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 23 Based on our agreement with the Examiner’s findings regarding Nomura (as disclosing the first system and first and second devices) as to claims 1 and 8, we find for similar reasons that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Nomura and Joa. Nomura teaches or suggests “providing the access instructions to the first device [Nomura’s DVR 20 and/or display] includes 9 Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 specifying a first piece of information [Nomura’s barcode] to be displayed on the display screen in order to gain access to the first system [Nomura’s servers 30 and/or 40]” as recited in independent claim 23. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 14, 17, 19, and 20 Based on our agreement with the Examiner’s findings regarding Nomura (as disclosing the first system and first and second devices) as to claims 1, 8, and 23 discussed above, we also find the Examiner did not err in rejecting representative independent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Nomura and Kasahara. In this light, we agree with the Examiner (see Final Act. 23—26; Ans. 50—58) that Nomura teaches or suggests (i) an identification of an image being an image a first device; and/or (ii) determining that the screen content is “associated with the first device,” as recited. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative independent claim 14, as well as claims 17, 19, and 20 grouped therewith. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 15 and 16 Dependent claims 15 and 16 are reproduced below with emphases added: 15. The apparatus of claim 14 wherein the image verification module is arranged to identity the image as being of the first device when it is determined that the content of the screen is associated with the first device by identifying that the content of the screen shows a home screen of the first device, and wherein the registration module is arranged to automatically register the first device when it is determined that the content of the screen is associated with the first device by providing the first 10 Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 device with access to the apparatus. 16. The apparatus of claim 14 further including: a data store, the data store being arranged to store data associated with the first device, wherein the data associated with the first device includes an address of the first device and information associated with the screen associated with the first device. With regard to claim 15, we agree with Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 44-46) that although Nomura’s Figure 27, and specifically step 2702, disclose using password, Nomura fails to disclose or suggest user identification of a password is part of any home screen of a first device for a DVR. In other words, we agree with Appellants that Nomura is silent as to any home screen. With regard to claim 16, taken in light of the Specification, we also agree with Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 46-47) that Nomura’s paragraphs 145 and 190 fail to disclose or suggest information associated with a screen associated with a first device as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 15 and 16 over the combination of Nomura and Kasahara. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, and 11—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Nomura discloses the first and second device limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. (2) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Nomura fails to disclose or suggest (i) a barcode including a text string or a security code; and/or (ii) a first piece of 11 Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 information including a text string or security code provided to a first device, as recited in dependent claims 21 and 22. (3) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Nomura and Joa because Nomura teaches or suggests “providing the access instructions to the first device includes specifying a first piece of information to be displayed on the display screen in order to gain access to the first system” as recited in independent claim 23. (4) Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Nomura and Kasahara because Nomura teaches or suggests (i) an identification of an image being an image a first device; and/or (ii) determining that the screen content is “associated with the first device,” as recited in representative independent claim 14. (5) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Nomura and Kasahara because Nomura fails to teach or suggest (i) a “home screen,” as recited in dependent claim 15; and/or (ii) “information associated with the screen associated with the first device,” as recited in dependent claim 16. DECISION The Examiner’s (i) anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11—13, and (ii) obviousness rejections of claims 14, 17, 19, 20, and 23 are affirmed. The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 15, 16, 21, and 22 are reversed. 12 Appeal 2015-001779 Application 13/412,948 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 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation