Ex Parte Mills

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2016

12217583 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/217,583 08/25/2008
38642 7590 02/02/2016
WILEY HORTON
215 SOUTH MONROE STREET
2NDFLOOR
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sharon M. Mills
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.
22365-23989 9185
EXAMINER
GEBREMICHAEL, BRUK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHARON M. MILLS
Appeal2013-005037
Application 12/217,583
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, JILL D. HILL, and BRANDON J. WARNER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-7 and 13-20. Br. 1. Claims 8-12 have been cancelled. Id. at 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2013-005037
Application 12/217 ,583
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claims 2-7, 18, and 19 depend
from claim 1. Claims 14--17 and 20 depend from claim 13. Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced below.
1. A method for educating a user, comprising:
a. providing a primary computing device, having a
display and an input function for receiving input from
said user;
b. providing a control computing device;
c. providing a two-way communications link between
said primary computing device and said control
computing device;
d. selecting a function to be controlled on said primary
computing device, with said function on said primary
computing device being a communication function
between said primary computing device and a third
computing device which is separate from said primary
computing device and said control computing device;
e. transmitting a question and a plurality of response
options associated with said question from said
control computing device to said primary computing
device over said two-way communications link;
f. when said user attempts to access said selected
function on said primary computing device, denying
said access and displaying said question and said
plurality of response options on said display of said
primary computing device;
g. accepting said user's selection of one of said plurality
of response options as an answer;
h. determining whether said answer is correct; and
1. controlling said user's access to said selected function
on said primary computing device on the basis of
whether said answer is correct.
2
Appeal2013-005037
Application 12/217 ,583
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ritchie (US 2002/0178058 Al, pub. Nov. 28, 2002) and
Utsch (US 2009/0047928 Al, pub. Feb. 19, 2009).
Claims 4, 5, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ritchie, Utsch, and Hau (US 2008/0318200 Al; pub. Dec.
25, 2008).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ritchie, Utsch, and Bandhole (US 2002/0059377 Al; pub. May 16, 2002).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Siegel (US 2003/0014400 Al, pub. Jan. 16, 2003) and Utsch.
Claims 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Siegel, Utsch, and Hau.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 and 7 as unpatentable over Ritchie and Utsch
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the Examiner found that Ritchie discloses
a method for educating users including a user primary computing device, a
control computing device (host computer), and selecting a communication
function to be controlled on the primary computing device (i-f 40), but does
not disclose denying access to the communication function when the user
attempts to access the selected function and displaying a question and
plurality of response options. Ans. 5---6. The Examiner finds that Utsch
discloses a method for authenticating a mobile access using message-based
security that denies a user's access to a selected function and displaying a
question and plurality of response options on the display of the computing
device. Id. at 6 (citing i1i17, 22).
3
Appeal2013-005037
Application 12/217 ,583
Appellant argues that Ritchie fails to disclose a function controlled on
the primary computing device, but discloses a host as a control computing
device that controls access to a game section on the host through a game
playing link as a gateway function. Br. 11. Appellant argues that Ritchie's
function (play game link) is controlled on a host (control computing device).
Id. Appellant also argues that Ritchie fails to disclose a host controlling a
function on a user's primary computing device. Id. at 12. Instead, Appellant
argues that Ritchie's host controls access to itself or associated devices. Id.
Appellant argues that Utsch provides access to a host or information
source based on a pre-determined database of questions and answers (i-f 22)
but fails to disclose control over a function located on the user's computing
device. Id. at 13. Appellant argues that Utsch allows input from the user's
device to the host computer and, upon verifying that a message is correct,
the host allows the user to gain access through a firewall to the host. Id.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Ritchie or Utsch discloses controlling a user's access to a function on a
primary computing device, as recited in claim 1. The Examiner's finding
that the "play game link" of Ritchie allows the "host or control computing
device in Ritchie [to] control[] access to the game section through said link
(importantly controlled exclusively on the control computing device) ... "
(Ans. 5, 13, 14--15) does not explain how the host/control computing device
controls access to a function on the user's primary computing device, as
claimed. Clicking the link establishes a game session on the host computer,
not on a user's primary computing device. Ritchie i1 40. Ritchie teaches that
the Host web server controls a user's access to a main menu and entry into a
game arena. Ritchie i1i1 31, 34.
4
Appeal2013-005037
Application 12/217 ,583
Ritchie teaches that users are permitted to access a play game section
through play game link 20 and, upon successful login, the Host computer
creates a unique session identifier to track a user's session. Ritchie i-f 40.
Completion of a survey allows a user to play a game in real time against live
competitors. Id. i-fi-1 48-51. Thus, the Host computer controls access of a
user's primary computing device to a game function on the Host computer
because the user must log onto the Host computer to play a game. See id. i-fi-1
52-55, Figs. 4, 5. The Host computer does not control a user's access to a
function on the user's primary computing device, however.
The Examiner appears to recognize that the Host server only controls
a user's access to a function on the Host server, rather than on the user's
primary computing device, as claimed. The Examiner states that "a person
of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the fact that the Host
system (i.e. Ritchie's Host system) does control communications between
users (e.g. between two or more players) since the users are required to log
into the Host's website in order to establish a session for interaction or
participating in a game." Ans. 15, 17. The Examiner has not established,
however, that the Host computer controls access of a user to a function on
the user's primary computing device, as claimed.
Like Ritchie, Utsch teaches control of access by a User and primary
computing device to a host or information source based on a database of
questions and answers. Utsch i-f 22; Br. 13. Utsch does not control access to
a function located on a user's primary computing device, as claimed. Br. 13.
Utsch allows a user at a primary computing device to access a database or a
"datasource of interest" at a host computer through a firewall by responding
to a message. Utsch i-fi-17, 22, 23; Ans. 19 (citing Utsch i-fi-17, 22); cf Ans. 6.
5
Appeal2013-005037
Application 12/217 ,583
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 7.
Claims 4, 5, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over Ritchie, Utsch, and Hau
The Examiner relies on Hau to disclose features of claims 4, 5, 18,
and 19, but not to overcome the deficiencies of Ritchie or Utsch for claim 1.
Ans. 7-8. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 18, and 19.
Claim 6 as unpatentable over Ritchie, Utsch, and Bandhole
The Examiner relies on Bandhole to disclose features of claim 6, but
not to overcome any deficiencies of Ritchie or Utsch noted above for claim
1. Ans. 8-9. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 13-15 as unpatentable over Siegel and Utsch
The Examiner relies on Siegel to disclose a text messaging function
that allows a first cellphone to communicate with a second cellphone. Ans.
9. The user relies on Utsch to disclose controlling access to text messaging
on the first cellphone based on a correct answer to a question. Id. at 10.
We agree with Appellant that Utsch does not control a user's access to
a function on a primary computing device, as claimed, but instead involves
authentication between a host and a cell phone user that controls a user's
access to a database, as discussed above. Br. 15; Utsch i-fi-17, 22, 23.
We also agree with Appellant that Siegel does not control access to a
text messaging function on a cell phone, as claimed. Br. 15. Instead, Siegel
discloses bi-directional communication between client computers 103-105,
110 and host server 101. Siegel i-fi-178-81, 84--92, Figs. 1, 2. The messaging
that occurs between a first and second cellphone in Siegel (Ans. 9) involves
threaded discussion or instant messaging that users engage in through host
server 101. Siegel i-fi-f 113, 258. Thus, Siegel does not deny access by a user
6
Appeal2013-005037
Application 12/217 ,583
to a text messaging function on the user's first cell phone, as claimed.
Rather, Siegel sends "display pages" to a user's client computer 103 and
establishes bi-directional communication between host server 101 and client
computer 103 based on a user's responses to a display page(s). Id. i-fi-184--88.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 13-15.
Claims 16, 17, and 20 as unpatentable over Siegel, Utsch, and Hau
The Examiner relies on Hau to disclose features of claims 16, 17, and
20, but not to overcome deficiencies of Siegel or Utsch as to claim 13. Ans.
11-12. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 16, 17, and 20.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-7 and 13-20.
REVERSED
7