Ex Parte Jordan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2011

10337137 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2011)

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.
10/337,137 01/06/2003 Royce D. Jordan JR. 00158CON1 9459
52246 7590 06/27/2011
AT&T Legal Department - PIP Law LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
One AT&T Way
Room 2A-207
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, PHUOC H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROYCE D. JORDAN, JR.
____________

Appeal 2009-011479
Application 10/337,137
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and JASON
V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-011479
Application 10/337,137

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 8-19, 26-30, 32, and 37-48. (App. Br. 5.) Claims 1-7, 20-25, 31, and
33-36 were cancelled. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Disclosed Invention
The disclosed invention includes an apparatus comprising a database
machine. (Spec. ¶ [0016]; FIG. 3.) The database machine “may include a
processor.” (Spec. ¶ [0025].) The apparatus is in communication with a
wireless network and an external network. (Spec. ¶ [0011]; FIG. 1.) The
processor “may include an edit request module 54 for receiving a request to
alter the profile of a user via the external network 14, and an update module
56 for altering the profile of the user.” (Spec. ¶ [0025].)
Exemplary claim 8 follows:
8. An apparatus for editing a profile of a user associated with a
wireless network for a wireless messaging service via an external network,
the apparatus comprising:
a database machine in communication with the wireless network for
the wireless messaging service and the external network, wherein the
database machine is configured to receive a request from the user to edit the
profile of the user of the wireless messaging service via the wireless network
and the database machine includes a processor, the processor including:
an edit request module for receiving a request to edit the profile of the
user via the external network; and
an update module for altering the profile of the user.

Appeal 2009-011479
Application 10/337,137

3
The Examiner rejected claims 8-16, 18-19, 26, and 37-48 as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on U.S. Patent 6,295,291 B1 (Larkins) and
U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0007464 A1 (Balani). (Ans. 3.)
The Examiner rejected claims 17, 27-30, and 32 as obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Larkins, Balani, and U.S. Patent 7,133,660 B2
(Irlam). (Ans. 9.)

ISSUE
Appellant‟s responses to the Examiner‟s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner establish that the combination of Larkins and Balani
teaches a) “a database machine in communication with the wireless
network for the wireless messaging service and the external network,”
and b) that “the database machine includes a processor including” an
edit request module and an update module, as recited in claim 8 and as
similarly recited in claims 19, 26, 32 and 37?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Larkins
1. Larkins discloses a system that “enables a potential radiotelephone
subscriber to set up service with a radio telephone service provider.” (2:9-
11.)
2. The system includes a Home Location Register (HLR), a credit
validation module, a billing system, an authentication center, and a World
Wide Web server. (FIG. 1.) The HLR “is a database of profiles for all of
Appeal 2009-011479
Application 10/337,137

4
the radiotelephones operating in a particular service provider‟s system. The
profiles include the features purchased by the subscriber.” (3:49-52.)
3. A user can issue a request to the system to edit the user‟s profile by
activating an “Update Profile” button. The user can then alter the profile:
By clicking on the appropriate boxes/buttons with the cursor,
the subscriber can change his service plan including: rates,
long distance carrier, and access to roaming. Additionally,
basic features can be added or removed from the subscriber‟s
profile by activating the appropriate box or button.
(6:2-7.)
4. The system is in communication with a wireless network through an
“Over-The-Air Activation Function.” (FIG. 1.) The system is also in
communication with an external network (i.e., the World Wide Web)
through a World Wide Web Server. (FIG. 1.)

Balani
5. Balani discloses a “method and system for wireless communication in
a virtual community, whereby users can obtain access to venue specific
information, applications and services on a host server on their wireless,
portable communication devices.” (Abstract.)
6. A user can issue a request to edit the user‟s profile via a wireless
network and can alter the profile:
When the User 140 taps Edit/View my Profile option, the
command “SYSVMPRO” is sent through the Messaging
Protocol 141 to the System Server 103x In response, System
Server 103x, calls the SQL stored procedure “EditProfileProc”,
which returns profile data along with the Alert Setting data of
User 140 and System Server 103x sends

Appeal 2009-011479
Application 10/337,137

5
this information to the Client 200 by sending the command
“SYSVMPRO” through the Messaging Protocol 141.
(¶ [0083].)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears an initial burden of factually supporting an
articulated rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Under
§ 103, “„there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.‟” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts that Larkins does not teach “the claimed database
machine that is in communication with the wireless network and the external
network.” (App. Br. 14.) Appellant argues that the HLR of Larkins “is not
in communication with a wireless network, it is part of the wireless
network.” (Id. (emphasis omitted).) Appellant also argues that HLRs “are
typically protected behind network firewalls and other security mechanisms,
not coupled to external networks.” (Id.)
As explained by the Examiner, however, Larkins discloses more than
just the HLR; it discloses many other components including a credit
validation module 140, a billing system 130, an authentication center 125,
and a World Wide Web server 105. (Ans. 12; accord FF 2.) These
components collectively include a database machine. (See FF 2.) Moreover,
these components are in communication with the wireless network via the
Over-The-Air Activation Function (FF 4) and with the external network to
the Internet Access Device. (FF 4.) Accordingly, Appellant has not shown
Appeal 2009-011479
Application 10/337,137

6
that Larkins fails to disclose a database machine that is in communication
with a wireless network and an external network.
Appellant also asserts that the HLR of Larkins does not include “2)
the claimed processor; 3) the claimed edit request module; and 4) the
claimed update module.” (App. Br. 14.) Appellant argues that the HLR
“does not and cannot store the web pages, since those are stored at the world
wide web server 105.” (App. Br. 16.) Appellant further argues that
“Larkins does not teach that the world wide web sever [sic] 105 is included
in the HLR 110.” (Id.)
As explained supra, however, Larkins teaches a group of components
that include a database machine. Moreover, these components include a
processor containing the edit request module and update module because a
user can issue a request to the system of Larkins to edit the user‟s profile and
can alter the profile. (FF 3.) Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that
Larkins fails to disclose a database machine containing a processor including
an edit request module and a claimed update module.
Appellant also argues that “[h]otspots, as taught by Balani, do not
teach wireless networks that include wireless messaging services and
messaging profiles.” (App. Br. 17.) Appellant further argues that “Balani
does not teach a database that is ‘in communication with the wireless
network for the wireless messaging service,‟ as claimed by the Appellant.”
(App. Br. 18.)
Appellant‟s arguments are not persuasive. As explained supra,
Larkins teaches a database machine in communication with the wireless
network for the wireless messaging service. Moreover, as explained by the
Examiner, “the secondary reference by Balani is used/applied to show
Appeal 2009-011479
Application 10/337,137

7
ONLY the missing feature of „the database machine is configured to receive
a request from the user to edit the profile via the wireless network.‟” (Ans.
19; accord FF 5 and 6.)
For these reasons, Appellant has not shown that the combination of
Larkins and Balani fails to render obvious independent claim 8.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of independent claim
8. For the reasons expressed above as well as the findings and reasons set
forth in the Examiner‟s Answer (which are herein incorporated by
reference), we will also sustain the Examiner‟s rejections of independent
claims 19, 26, 32, and 37, and dependent claims 9-18, 27-30, and 38- 48,
because Appellant either did not present separate arguments for these claims,
presented arguments that are similar to those that were set forth for claim 8,
or failed to present a convincing rebuttal to the Examiners rationale. (See
App. Br. 13-25; Reply Br. 1-12; Ans. 5-26.)

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner‟s decision rejecting claims 8-19, 26-30, 32,
and 37-48.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD