Ex Parte Rubio

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13151220 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 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.
13/151,220 06/01/2011 Ramon Rubio 2553.1002 4513
21171 7590 11/17/2017
STA AS fr HAT SFY T T P
EXAMINER
SUITE 700 TRAN, ELLEN C
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
ptomail @ s-n-h.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAMON RUBIO
Appeal 2017-003678
Application 13/151,22c1
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, 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—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is identified as the real party in interest. See
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003678
Application 13/151,220
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a social network system with access
provision mechanisms for a peripheral such as a printer. Title, Abstract.
Claims 1, 6, and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference (emphasis added2):
1. A method of operation of a social network system
comprising:
generating with a control unit an access combination for
grouping a member of a social platform and another member of
a different social platform, the social platform and the different
social platform each for representing a service or a site for the
member and the another member building and reflecting social
relations with other person, organization, or a combination
thereof;
receiving a service request for accessing a peripheral
device revealed based on the access combination through a
social graph of one of the social platform, the social graph for
representing an existing social relationship between members
within the one of the social platform;
determining a request type for matching the service
request to a device service provided by the peripheral device;
authorizing the device service through the social graph for
accessing the peripheral device; and
generating a service command based on the request type
of the device service authorized for executing the device service
for the peripheral device.
References and Rejections
The following references are relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
2 The emphasized limitations are referred to herein as the generating and
receiving limitations.
2
Appeal 2017-003678
Application 13/151,220
Teng US 6,240,456 B1 May 29, 2001
Uchino US 2004/0196486 A1 Oct. 7, 2004
Cordesses US 2008/0252910 A1 Oct. 16, 2008
Miyachi US 7,511,837 B1 Mar. 31,2009
Hertling US 2011/0090529 A1 Apr. 21,2011
Formo US 2011/0161478 A1 June 30, 2011
Kamath US 2010/0309508 A1 Dec. 9, 2010
Claims 1, 6, 12, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Formo, Kamath, and Hertling. Final Act. 6.
Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Formo, Kamath, Hertling, and Teng. Final Act. 13.
Claims 3, 4, 7—10, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Formo, Kamath, Hertling, and
Uchino. Final Act. 15.
Claims 18 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Formo, Kamath, Hertling, Uchino, and Cordesses.
Final Act. 18.
Claims 11 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Formo, Kamath, Hertling, and Miyachi. Final Act. 19.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Formo teaches the generating and receiving
limitations of claim 1 (and the limitations similarly recited in independent
claims 6 and 12), because “Formo clearly teaches aggregating/grouping
information from a collection of sources” and also “clearly teaches
3
Appeal 2017-003678
Application 13/151,220
connecting objects of users with other object of user in different
organizations, or site building ... or a combination.” Ans. 18—19 (citing
Formo 82—84).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error, because
“Formo teaches only aggregating or importing user profiles from ‘web-based
social network services’ and separately grouping users based on common
attribute ‘that the user has decided to share’, but not utilizing any social
connections or mappings from one of the services to facilitate access through
a different service.” App. Br. 15—16 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further
argues “[mjoreover, Formo teaches importing user profiles away from ‘web-
based social network services’ to link profiles within separate group
established outside of ‘web-based social network services.’” Reply Br. 10
(emphasis omitted).3
We are persuaded the Examiner erred. Formo discloses a method of
networking objects—such as consumer electronics—using social mapping
principles. See Formo 37, 39. In creating such a network, Formo teaches
“[gjroups of users could be created among users living within the same
household” based on “[djata for [] user profiles [which] could be imported
or aggregated from existing user profiles of known web-based social
network services such as Facebook, MySpace, and Linkedin.” Formo 1 82.
The users in the groups may share access to the networked objects through a
network management system. See Formo ]Hf 18, 83—84, Table 1.
3 We refer to the Reply Brief filed on December 30, 2016 (“Reply Br.”),
which does not contain page numbering beyond page 1. Throughout this
opinion, page number references to the Reply Brief refer to the brief as if
numbered consecutively after the first page.
4
Appeal 2017-003678
Application 13/151,220
We find Formo’s groups are based on information from social
platforms, but Formo’s networked objects have their functionality controlled
through a network management system separate from the social platforms.
See Formo 37—39. Thus, Formo does not teach or suggest the generating
and receiving limitations, as Formo does not teach or suggest the recited
“receiving a service request for accessing a peripheral device revealed based
on the access combination through a social graph of one of the social
platform” (emphasis added). The Examiner does not rely on the other cited
references for the generating and receiving limitations. See Ans. 19. As
such, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the cited references
teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1, and the limitations similarly
recited by independent claims 6 and 12.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,
6, and 12, and the claims dependent thereon.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Although not dispositive to our decision, we note Appellant refers to
“the claim limitation of accessing across various social platforms.” App. Br.
16; see also App. Br. 12. Claim 1, however, only refers to a single social
platform with respect to accessing a peripheral device: access is through
“one of the social platform,” and the user relationship is “between members
within the one of the social platform.” Thus, although claim 1 requires
grouping members from different social platforms, the claim reasonably
requires that the peripheral device access can be within only one of the
different social platforms.
5
Appeal 2017-003678
Application 13/151,220
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—22 is reversed.
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).
REVERSED
6