Ex Parte Salisbury et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2017

14168620 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 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.
14/168,620 01/30/2014 Peter Reed SALISBURY 20424.0116USU1 3262
136306 7590 12/11/2017
IR HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C.
45 South Seventh Street
Suite 2700
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1683
EXAMINER
BODDEN, EVRAL E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2017 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 @hsml. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER REED SALISBURY and
JAMES FREDERICK JOHNSON
Appeal 2017-007707
Application 14/168,6201
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 3, 5—9, 14, and 15. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Trane International
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-007707
Application 14/168,620
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to “systems and methods for
updating software installed on a mobile computer,” and more particularly to
“systems and methods for automatically offering to update and/or
automatically updating software installed on a mobile computer.” Spec.
1:6—9. Independent claim 3 is directed to a computer network system; and
independent claim 9 is directed to a method. App. Br. 17, 18—19.
Claim 3 recites (emphasis added)
3. A computer network system, comprising:
a network;
a first server connected to the network;
a second server connected to the network;
one or more mobile computers connected to the network,
wherein the first server controls pushing of electronic
data from the second server to one or more of the mobile
computers via the network,
one or more of the mobile computers includes a client
program stored in a non-transitory memory that receives the
electronic data pushed from the second server, displays the
electronic data on a display of one or more of the mobile
computers, and stores the electronic data to the non-transitory
memory of one or more of the mobile computers, and
the client program of one or more of the mobile
computers initiates downloading of software associated with the
electronic data from the second server via the network.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 3 and 5—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nair (US 2010/0162374 Al, published June 24, 2010) and
2
Appeal 2017-007707
Application 14/168,620
Parry et al. (US 2014/0013450 Al, published Jan. 9, 2014) (“Parry”). Final
Act. 4.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nair, Parry, and Turakhia (US 2009/0319611 Al, published Dec. 24, 2009).
Final Act. 17.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nair, Parry, Turakhia, and Hook et al. (US 7,826,834 B2, issued Nov.
2, 2010) (“Hook”). Final Act. 24.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nair, Parry, and Hook. Final Act. 25.
ANALYSIS
Claims 3, 5—8, and 15
Claim 3 recites “the first server controls pushing of electronic data
from the second server to one or more of the mobile computers via the
network.”
Appellants contend Nair’s messaging server 312 does not teach the
claimed first server, and Nair’s update server 316 does not teach the claimed
second server, because Nair’s messaging server (first server) controls
sending messages from itself to the mobile device and the mobile device
receives the associated data from the update server (second server). App.
Br. 11—12. The Examiner finds Nair teaches the “messaging server controls
pushing by sending a message to the group of mobile computing devices”
and “triggers the update (i.e. controls pushing) by sending a notification.”
Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 6—7. We agree with the Examiner.
3
Appeal 2017-007707
Application 14/168,620
Appellants’ Specification provides broad examples that “a single
server 106 controls the pushing of the software to each of the mobile
computers 102, 104” and “can control and manage the amount of network
120 traffic that is used” and “can manage the updating of the mobile
computers 102, 104.” Spec. 5:23—27. In Appellants’ example, “at least one
of the servers 106 is configured to push data associated with the software
updates to the mobile computer 102, 104,” and this data includes “server
identification data of a network address of the server 106, 108, 110 which
has the software update, so that the client program running on the mobile
device 102, 104 can connect to the server 106, 108, 110 at the network
address” and “download the software update from the server 106, 108, 110.”
Spec. 6:10—18. Appellants’ Specification further describes the term “‘push’
(or ‘pushing’). . . means a method of delivering (e.g., providing, sending,
transmitting, etc.) computer-readable electronic data (e.g., software) from a
software providing computer ... to a client computer.” Spec. 5:8—13.
Appellants do not provide any limiting definition for how a server “controls
pushing of electronic data from [another] server” (emphasis added). Instead,
the claimed “first server controls pushing of electronic data from the second
server,” in light of Appellants’ Specification, broadly encompasses a first
server 106 sending (pushing) data to a mobile computer that leads to the
mobile computer requesting the associated software update from a second
server 108, 110, which then leads to the second server 108, 110 sending
(pushing) the software update to the mobile device for download.
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 6—7), Nair teaches “the
messaging server 312 itself determines that an update package is available,”
and then “the messaging server 312 next publishes 504 an ‘update package
4
Appeal 2017-007707
Application 14/168,620
available’ message indicating that an update package is available for
distribution to mobile computing devices.” Nair || 48-49. In Nair, the
“mobile computing devices 462a-n, after receiving the update available
message, request the update package software from the update server 316”
and the update server 316 “transmits 507 the update package to the
requesting mobile computing devices 462a-n'” so that the computing device
can either install or download the update software. Nair | 54. In other
words, Nair teaches a messaging server 312 sending data to a mobile
computer that leads to the mobile computer requesting the associated
software update from the update server 316, which then leads to the update
server 316 sending the software update to the mobile device and the mobile
device downloading the update.
As such, consistent with the broad claim limitation that the first server
“controls” pushing of electronic data from the second server, and in light of
Appellants’ Specification describing an exemplary process utilizing a server
106 controlling the sending of electronic data and software updates from
servers 108, 110, Nair’s messaging server 312 and update server 316 teach
the first server and the second server, respectively, as claimed. Appellants
have not provided persuasive evidence that a first server sending data to a
mobile device leading to the mobile device acquiring a software update from
a second server, as required by claim 3, is not taught or otherwise suggested
by Nair’s messaging server sending data to a mobile device leading to the
mobile device acquiring a software update from the update server.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claim 3,
as well as the rejections of claims 5—8 and 15, not separately argued. See
App. Br. 10.
5
Appeal 2017-007707
Application 14/168,620
Claims 9 and 14
Claim 9 recites “a control server controlling one or more data servers
to transmit information to the mobile computer via a network.”
Appellants contend Nair’s messaging server “controlling itself to send
a message” to the mobile device does not teach “the control server
controlling a data server to send a message to the mobile device.” App. Br.
14. The Examiner finds Nair’s messaging server 312 teaches the claimed
control server and Nair’s update server 316 teaches the claimed data server.
Ans. 9 (citing Nair || 48-49, 54); see also Final Act. 18—19. We agree with
the Examiner.
As discussed supra, Appellants’ Specification does not provide any
limiting definition for how a server “controls” other servers, or how “a
control server controls] one or more data servers to transmit information.”
Instead, the claimed “control server controlling one or more data servers to
transmit information,” in light of Appellants’ Specification, broadly
encompasses a first server 106 sending (pushing) data to a mobile computer
that leads to the mobile computer requesting the associated software update
from a second server 108, 110, which then leads to the second server 108,
110 sending (pushing) the software update to the mobile device for
download. See Spec. 5:8—13, 23—27, 6:10-18.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Nair teaches a messaging
server 312 sending data to a mobile computer that leads to the mobile
computer requesting the associated software update from the update server
316, which then leads to the update server 316 sending the software update
to the mobile device and the mobile device downloading the update. See
6
Appeal 2017-007707
Application 14/168,620
Final Act. 18—19 (citing Nair H 48-49, 54); see also Ans. 9 (citing Nair
1148-49, 54).
Again, consistent with the broad claim limitation “a control server
controlling one or more data servers to transmit information to the mobile
computer via a network,” and in light of Appellants’ Specification, Nair’s
messaging server 312 and update server 316 teach the control server and the
data server, respectively, as claimed. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence that a first server (control server) sending data to a
mobile device leading to the mobile device acquiring a software update from
a second server (data server), as required by claim 9, is not taught or
otherwise suggested by Nair’s messaging server sending data to a mobile
device leading to the mobile device acquiring a software update from the
update server.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 9, as well as the rejection of dependent claim 14, not
separately argued.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 3, 5—9, 14, and 15 are 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).
AFFIRMED
7