Ex Parte KirkeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201613769745 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131769,745 02/18/2013 51472 7590 06/02/2016 GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM) P.O. BOX 160727 AUSTIN, TX 78716-0727 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tony Kirke 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. BP5214Il 7420 EXAMINER OBAYANJU, OMONIYI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM ghmptocor@texaspatents.com bpierotti@texaspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TONY KIRKE Appeal2014-007351 Application 13/769,745 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a "method and system for delivering messages to one or more wireless handheld communication devices." Specification 1. Appeal2014-007351 Application 13/769,745 Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A centralized communication device within a network, comprising: a memory maintaining a plurality of authorized device lists, each of the plurality of authorized device lists being unique to a respective one of a plurality of wireless handheld communication devices and each of the plurality of authorized device lists containing identifiers of one or more devices authorized to access the respective one of the plurality of wireless handheld communication devices; and circuitry for providing an authorized device list of a second wireless handheld communication device to a first wireless handheld communication device to enable the first wireless handheld communication device to determine whether the first wireless handheld communication device is authorized to access the second wireless handheld communication device when the second wireless handheld device is outside a wireless operating range of the first wireless handheld device; wherein the circuitry further facilitates the establishment of a communication link between the first wireless handheld communication device and the second wireless handheld communication device when the first wireless handheld communication device determines that the first wireless handheld communication device is authorized to access the second wireless handheld communication device. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Munetsugu et al. (European Patent 16081170 Al ; published Dec. 21, 2005) and Heinonen et al. (US 6,968, 153 B 1; issued Nov. 22, 2005). Final Rejection 3-15. 2 Appeal2014-007351 Application 13/769,745 ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 12, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed June 18, 2014), the Answer (mailed Apr. 23, 2014), and the Final Rejection (mailed Oct. 17, 2014) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief, except where noted. Appellant argues that, "it is clear that it is the intermediate server of 101 [of Munetsugu], that makes the determination of whether the query terminal 103 is permitted to communicate with the callee terminal 104." Appeal Brief 12. Appellant further argues, "Ji;funetsugu does not teach or suggest that the intermediate server 101 would send the permitted-terminal tables to any other entity, let alone the wireline query terminal 103 that is requesting permission to communicate with another wireline terminal 104." Appeal Brief 12-13. Appellant does "not find, and the Examiner fails to argue, that the configuration of Munetsugu could be modified to have the query terminal 103 receive the permitted-table terminals and determine whether the query terminal 103 is permitted to communicate with the callee terminal 104 based on the tables." Appeal Brief 13. Appellant argues the obviousness rejection is erroneous because Munetsugu fails to disclose the "providing an authorized device list ... to access the second wireless handheld communication device" limitation. Appeal Brief 13. 3 Appeal2014-007351 Application 13/769,745 Claim 1 only requires "circuitry for providing an authorized device list" within a centralized communications device within a network. The Examiner finds that Munetsugu discloses in Figures 1 and 2 circuitry for providing an authorized device list. We agree. The circuitry disclosed in Munetsugu utilizes the data (authorized device list) to authenticate connections between devices within the network. See Munetsugu, paragraphs 113, 192; Figure 4. Appellant argues that the combination of Munetsugu and Heinonen fails to teach the "providing an authorized device list ... to access the second wireless handheld communication device" limitation because Heinonen "merely teaches a repeater for facilitating communication between Bluetooth enabled devices" and fails to address the noted deficiency ofMunetsugu. Appeal Brief 14. We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive because we do not find Munetsugu deficient. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as independent claims 9 and 16 commensurate in scope and not separately argued. Appellant argues that the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 is erroneous because of the noted deficiency of the Munetsugu and Heinonen combination. Appeal Brief 15. Appellant argues "that the combination of Munetsugu and Heinonen likewise does not teach or suggest that the 'first wireless handheld communication device could access the authorized device list of 'third wireless handheld communication device' to 'determine whether the first wireless handheld communication device is authorized to access the third wireless handheld communication device." Appeal Brief 15. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because we did not find the Munetsugu and Heinonen combination deficient. 4 Appeal2014-007351 Application 13/769,745 Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 8, 14, 15 and 20, as well as, claims 2-6, 10-13 and 17-19 not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1-20 is affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation