Ex Parte Nicholson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613756425 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/756,425 01/31/2013 Jonas Kolba Nicholson 910191.40501C1 1709 116941 7590 12/29/2016 Seed IP Law Group LLP/Nuance Communications, Inc. 701 Fifth Avenue Suite 5400 Seattle, WA 98104 EXAMINER GEE, JASON KAI YIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2495 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): Patentinfo @ SeedIP.com IP. Inbox @ nuance, com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONAS KOLBA NICHOLSON, ABBAS ALI VANAK, ALEXANDER KINLIN, PAUL JOHN HENRY KLASSEN, TOMASZ J. GIL, NILESH RANE, and RYAN B. STARKEY Appeal 2015-007900 Application 13/756,425 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1—22 and 28—30. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Nuance Communications, Inc. and Telluride, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Nuance Communications, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 3, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed Aug. 25, 2015, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed June 25, 2015, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed Oct. 10, 2014, “Final Act.”), and the Appeal 2015-007900 Application 13/756,425 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to provision of network and web-based communications to an automobile. See Abstract. Claims 1,14, and 28 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting and emphasis added: 1. A method for electronically providing services to an automobile head unit comprising: receiving, by a computer processor of a server, a request from a remote device, the remote device associated with an authenticated user and distinct and separate from the server; identifying, by the computer processor of the server, a remote automobile head unit associated with the request, the remote automobile head unit distinct and separate from the server and distinct and separate from the remote device of the authenticated user, wherein the identifying of the remote automobile head unit is based at least in part on the request and on one or more of the authenticated user and the remote device; and in response to the request, causing the identified remote automobile head unit to operate according to preferences that are stored on the remote device and associated with the authenticated user or another authenticated user, the causing of the identified remote automobile head unit to operate according to the stored preferences including electronically providing, by the computer processor of the server, services or information to the identified remote automobile head unit based on one or more of: the request, the authenticated user, the another authenticated user, and the remote device. Specification (filed Jan. 31, 2013, “Spec.”) for their respective details. 2 Appeal 2015-007900 Application 13/756,425 References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Banerjee et al, US 2006/0031571 A1 Feb. 9, 2006 Zhang et al., US 2007/0005206 Al Jan. 4, 2007 Bose etal., US 2011/0271183 Al Nov. 3,2011 The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1, 3—9, 11, 13—22, and 28—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bose and Banerjee. Final Act. 3—10. 2. Claims 2, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bose, Banerjee, and Zhang. Final Act. 11—12. ANAFYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—22 and 28—30 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 9—18. Claims 1,3-9,11, and 13: Obviousness over Bose and Banerjee Identifying, by the computer processor of the server, a remote automobile head unit associated with the request. The Examiner finds that Bose does not teach identifying a remote automobile head unit associated with the request, but finds such identification to “be obvious, if not inherent.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Bose discloses “a mobile unit may connect to a remote unit via a network.” Id. To exemplify the obviousness of such network connection, the Examiner finds Banerjee teaches that a client connects to a server via a 3 Appeal 2015-007900 Application 13/756,425 proxy wherein the proxy authenticates the client device and allows the client to communicate with server. In addition, the client’s request to the proxy also identifies the destination server. Id. Appellants contend that independent Claim 1 explicitly recites the “computer processor of the server''’ performs the identifying of the automobile head unit associated with the received request, and that such server is “distinct and separate'’’ from both the remote automobile head unit and the remote device sending the request. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue in view of the plain language of independent Claim 1, the identification of the associated head unit is performed not by the mobile device sending the request, but rather, the identification is performed by the server receiving the request from the mobile device. Id. The Examiner finds Bose teaches a three-party system comprising a mobile terminal connected via a network to a second communications device. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds the network teaches the claimed “server.” Id. The Examiner finds Banerjee also teaches a three-party system wherein a client is equivalent to the claimed “remote device,” the proxy is equivalent to the claimed “server,” and the destination server is equivalent to the remote automobile head unit. Id. The Examiner finds Banerjee teaches a client sends a request to a proxy to connect to a destination server wherein the request identifies the destination server and includes authentication data. Id. The Examiner finds the proxy forwards the request to the destination server. Moreover, the Examiner finds the proxy must be able to identify a destination server in order to forward the request to that server. Id. at 5. 4 Appeal 2015-007900 Application 13/756,425 Appellants concede that a “network” may comprise a plurality of network devices and “servers.” Reply Br. 5. However, Appellants argue the Examiner provides no evidence that the Bose “network” is interchangeably equivalent to a “server,” nor does the Examiner provide evidence that Bose’ network possesses the functionality of the claimed “server.” Id. Appellants argue the Examiner admits that Banerjee teaches the client performs the identification, not the server. Id. at 6. We agree with Appellants. Appellants contend the claims recite that the server, separate and distinct from both the automobile head unit and the remote device of the authenticated user, identifies the remote automobile head unit associated with the request received from the remote device. Appellants argue that in each of Bose and Banerjee, the sending client, not the receiving server, identifies the remote automobile head unit. Reply Br. 6. With respect to Bose, the Examiner finds it “would be obvious, if not inherent, that a mobile unit would connect to the remote unit only if the mobile unit provides some type of identification of the remote unit. Otherwise, how would the mobile unit make such a connection to the remote unit if the mobile unit doesn’t identify the remote unit it wishes to connect to?” Ans. 4. With respect to Banerjee, the Examiner similarly finds that the “client request to proxy includes identification of the destination server.” Thus, the Examiner has not found any teaching, in either Bose or Banerjee, where the identification of the remote automobile head unit is performed by the receiving server, as claimed. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—9, 11, and 13. Claims 14—22: Obviousness over Bose and Banerjee 5 Appeal 2015-007900 Application 13/756,425 Appellants contend Claims 14—22 are patentable in view of the foregoing arguments in favor of independent Claim 1. App. Br. 14—15. The Examiner stands on the findings made in respect of Claim 1. Ans. 6. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14—22. Claims 28-30: Obviousness over Bose and Banerjee Appellants contend Claims 28—30 are patentable in view of the foregoing arguments in favor of independent Claim 1. App. Br. 15—16. The Examiner stands on the findings made in respect of Claim 1. Ans. 6. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28—30. Claims 2,10, and 12: Obviousness over Bose, Banerjee, and Zhang Appellants contend Zhang fails to cure the deficiencies of Bose and Banerjee. App. Br. 17. The Examiner stands on the findings made in respect of Claim 1. Ans. 6.Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 10, and 12. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1—22 and 28—30 under 35 USC §103 is REVERSED. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation