Ex Parte Migos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2017

13077904 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2017)

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.
13/077,904 03/31/2011 Charles J. Migos P10417US2
(119-0445US2)
6387
61947 7590 02/16/2017
Ar>r>le - Rlank Rome.
EXAMINER
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
LEE, BENJAMIN C
HOUSTON, TX 77002 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2017 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):
mbrininger @ blankrome. com
hou stonpatents @ blankrome .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES J. MIGOS,
JAY CHRISTOPHER CAPELA, MARKUS HAGELE, and
DIEGO BAUDUCCO
Appeal 2016-002477
Application 13/077,904
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, ADAM J. PYONIN, and SHARON FENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1—14 and 17—33, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-002477
Application 13/077,904
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “electronic devices with touch-sensitive
surfaces that establish impromptu networks with other electronic devices.”
Spec. 13. Claims 1, 24, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below for reference:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a display;
a touch-sensitive surface;
one or more processors;
memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs
are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the
one or more processors, the one or more programs including
instructions for:
receiving a network-initiation input from a user;
in response to receiving the network-initiation input from
the user, opening a network connection time window for
establishing two or more network connections with a plurality of
candidate devices within a predefined network range of the
electronic device, the network connection time window having a
predefined expiration time;
receiving, while the network connection time window is
open, two or more respective requests to form a network
connection sent from two or more respective responding devices
in the plurality of candidate devices within the predefined
network range; and
in response to receiving the two or more respective
requests from the two or more respective responding devices
within the predefined network range while the network
connection time window is open, establishing respective network
connections between the electronic device and the two or more
respective responding devices,
wherein at least one of the established respective network
connections enables the two or more respective responding
devices to communicate with each other.
2
Appeal 2016-002477
Application 13/077,904
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1—14 and 17—33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Davidson (US 2012/0001856 Al; publ. Jan. 5, 2012).
Final Act. 2—8.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting the independent
claims, because “the claims recite particular responding devices interacting
[with] the ‘electronic device’ of the claims in particular ways. These
particular roles played by the ‘electronic device’ and the two or more
‘responding devices’ in Appellants' claims are simply not taught or
suggested by the alleged ‘responding devices’ in Davidson.” Reply Br. 11—
12 (emphasis added); see also App. Br. 17. Appellants contend that, in
contrast with the claims, “Davidson only discusses the forming of a two-way
audio or video connection between the electronic device . . . and one other
responding device.” App. Br. 18.1
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Claim 1 recites
“establishing respective network connections between the electronic device
and the two or more respective responding devices, wherein at least one of
the established respective network connections enables the two or more
respective responding devices to communicate with each other.” That is,
claim 1 requires network connections with three devices. The Examiner
finds Davidson anticipates this limitation because “Davidson teaches at least
two network connections throughout the disclosure,” and “if the user of the
1 Appellants present additional arguments, but we do not reach them because
the identified arguments are dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal 2016-002477
Application 13/077,904
first terminal 11 decides that they wish to initiate a connection session with
another of the users currently in communication with the server, this
indicates that there can be multiple network connections established
simultaneously.” Ans. 5; see also Davidson Figs. 3A—3C, 5A—5C; 70, 76.
The Examiner does not, however, identify within Davidson any disclosure of
network connections with the three recited devices (i.e., the claimed
electronic device and the two or more responding devices). Nor do we find
the cited portions of Davidson disclose three networked devices in
communication: Davidson, rather, is directed to two-way communication
between only two devices. See, e.g., Davidson Fig. 3C; 176 (describing
initiating a connection between a “first terminal” of a user and a second
terminal of “another . . . user[]”).
We, thus, agree with Appellants the Examiner erred in finding
Davidson discloses all limitations recited by independent claim 1. See Reply
Br. 7; App. Br. 18—19. Independent claims 24 and 25 recite similar
limitations which we find similarly not disclosed by Davidson. See App. Br.
12. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claims,
or the claims dependent thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—14 and 17—33 is reversed.
REVERSED
4