Ex Parte Kafkarkou et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 201611519768 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111519,768 09/13/2006 105727 7590 06/23/2016 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (CA, Inc,) PO Box 10500 McLean, VA 22102 George Kafkarkou 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. 019287-0356864 7417 EXAMINER HEWITT II, CAL VIN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2016 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): Docket_IP@pillsbury law. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEORGE KAFKARKOU and CHRISTOPHER G. HICKEY Appeal2014-003267 Application 11/519,768 1 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEivIENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1 The Appellants identify CA, Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal2014-003267 Application 11/519,768 1. A method for distributing a software product of a software vendor to an end-user by a reseller, wherein the software product is distributed via an electronic distribution system, wherein the software vendor provides the reseller with access to the electronic distribution system, and wherein the reseller employs a technician, the method comprising: [ 1] providing a network portal to the electronic distribution system that is accessible by the technician via a computer network from a computer system of the end-user during an on- site visit by the technician to the end-user, wherein the technician is registered with the electronic distribution system and accesses the electronic distribution system usmg identification information; [2] rece1vmg, from the technician operating the computer system of the end-user, the identification information; [3] granting the technician access to the electronic distribution system from the computer system of the end-user such that the technician downloads the software product from the electronic distribution system to the computer system of the end-user via the computer network; [ 4] billing the reseller for the software product downloaded by the technician to the computer system of the end-user according to a pre-established payment arrangement between the reseller and the vendor whereby the reseller compensates the vendor for software distributed to the end-user by the reseller; and [5] providing an incentive payment to the reseller or the technician for the software product downloaded to the computer system of the end-user. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Slade US 2004/0083428 Al Apr. 29, 2004 2 Appeal2014-003267 Application 11/519,768 Neville Strickland Chabourov US 2006/0155610 Al US 2006/0206486 Al US 2007 /0094091 Al July 13, 2006 Sept. 14, 2006 Apr. 26, 2007 Claims 1-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slade, Neville, Chabourov, and Strickland. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slade, Neville, Chabourov, and Strickland? ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 includes the limitation [ 4] billing the reseller for the software product downloaded by the technician to the computer system of the end-user according to a pre-established payment arrangement between the reseller and the vendor whereby the reseller compensates the vendor for software distributed to the end-user by the reseller. The Examiner found said claim limitation disclosed in paragraph 133 of Slade and in paragraph 29 of Neville (see Ans. 7, 11). The Appellants contend, inter alia, that Slade and Neville do not disclose limitation [4] (App. Br. 11). We agree with the Appellants. We have reviewed the cited paragraphs of Slade and Neville, and we see no disclosure of billing a reseller for software downloaded by a technician to a computer system of an end-user according to a pre-established payment arrangement between the 3 Appeal2014-003267 Application 11/519,768 reseller and the vendor as required by claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection. Slade discloses an internet portal for accessing various destination web sites (see, e.g., Slade, Fig. 1 ). Slade discloses in paragraph 133 that "information supplied may depend on requests made by the owners of the destination site, possibly accompanied by appropriate payments." In other words, destination sites can require payment for access. We see no discussion of billing a reseller for a software product downloaded by a technician (or anyone else for that matter) to a computer system of an end- user as required by claim 1. Neville discloses a transaction portal system that receives supply or service notifications from a transaction client system that monitors a customer's networked devices (e.g., printers) that are serviced by a vendor (see, e.g., Neville, i-f 5-7). Neville discloses in paragraph 29 that "[t]he entity operating transaction portal system 10 would provide the transaction portal services in consideration of fees charged to or paid by the vendors 14." In other words, Neville discloses that vendors who service customer's devices can pay a fee to a portal operator for a portal service that monitors the customer's devices. Again, there is no discussion of billing a reseller for a software product downloaded by a technician to a computer system of an end-user as required by claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 21 contain a similar limitation as claim 1 and are apparently rejected based on the same erroneous findings (see Ans. 6-8). Accordingly, for the same reasons, we find that a prima facie case of 4 Appeal2014-003267 Application 11/519,768 obviousness has not been made out in the first instance for the subject matter of claims 11 and 21. CONCLUSION The rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Slade, Neville, Chabourov, and Strickland is not sustained. The rejection of the dependent claims is not sustained for the same reasons because independent claims 1, 11, and 21 from which they depend are nonobvious. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-39 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation