Ex Parte SarmaDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 17, 201010260834 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2010) 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. 10/260,834 09/30/2002 Srinivas G. Sarma 2002-003 7266 54472 7590 08/17/2010 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON 1400 CRESCENT GREEN SUITE 300 CARY, NC 27518 EXAMINER BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/17/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte SRINIVAS G. SARMA ____________ Appeal 2009-005785 Application 10/260,834 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-005785 Application 10/260,834 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 6-41. Claims 1-5 are withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to a method and apparatus for supporting remote servicing of embedded systems that communicate with a local system and a remote system (Spec. 1-2). Independent Claim 6 is representative and reads as follows: 6. A method of supporting remote service of embedded systems, the method comprising: receiving a service request at a remote computer system linked via computer network to a local computer system originating the service request, and wherein the local computer is communicatively coupled to an embedded device for which diagnostics are desired; interacting with the embedded device from the remote computer system responsive to the service request; and providing service feedback to the local computer system based on interacting with the embedded device. The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Koyama US 6,947,675 B2 Sep. 20, 2005 (filed May 2, 2002) Claims 6-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Koyama. Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner. Appeal 2009-005785 Application 10/260,834 3 ISSUE The issue is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue specifically turns on whether Koyama anticipates Appellant’s claimed invention by disclosing the step of “interacting with the embedded device from the remote computer system responsive to the service request,” as recited in claim 6. FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) 1. As depicted in Figure 1 of Koyama, the remote maintenance and diagnosis system includes client appliances 11 – 1N, a customer appliance administration apparatus 11, and a remote maintenance/diagnosis apparatus 12, which are connected with one another via a network 10. (Col. 3, ll. 31-37) 2. Koyama discloses that the customer appliance administration apparatus 11 collects and manages various information about the client appliances 11 – 1N for remote diagnosis of the client appliances. (Col. 3, ll. 52-55.) 3. The customer appliance administration apparatus 11 processes the information collected from the client appliances and transfers the information to the remote maintenance/diagnosis apparatus 12. Alternatively, the remote maintenance/diagnosis apparatus 12 can access apparatus 11 anytime to obtain necessary information for diagnosis. (Col. 3, l. 63 – col. 4, l. 3.) 4. Koyama further discloses that, upon detecting a failure, each of the client appliances 11 – 1N can make a service call to the customer appliance administration apparatus 11. (Col. 4, l. 62 – col. 5, l. 5.) Appeal 2009-005785 Application 10/260,834 4 5. All types of information related to the failure of the client appliances 11 – 1N are stored in the database 24 of the customer appliance administration apparatus 11, which is accessed by the remote maintenance/diagnosis apparatus 12 for making remote diagnosis of the client appliances. (Col. 5, ll. 16-20.) PRINCIPLES OF LAW A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). ANALYSIS As described above, the customer appliance administration apparatus 11 of Koyama obtains the information needed for diagnosis from the client appliances 11 – 1N and stores the information in the database 24 (FF 1, 2, 5). The stored information is later transferred to the remote maintenance/diagnosis apparatus 12 for diagnosis (FF 3). The information related to the client device failure may also be sent by each of the client devices to the customer appliance administration apparatus 11 (FF 4). We agree with Appellant (App. Br. 5) that the claimed interaction requires some connection between the remote computer and the embedded devices such Appeal 2009-005785 Application 10/260,834 5 that the remote computer provides service feedback based on the interaction with embedded device. See claim 6. Therefore, we disagree with the Examiner (Ans. 9) characterizing Koyama’s access to the database of the customer appliance administration apparatus 11 by the remote computer or the remote maintenance/diagnosis apparatus 12 as the claimed interaction by the remote computer with the embedded device. In that regard, the only interaction in Koyama with the embedded device is by the customer appliance administration apparatus 11, where the remote computer of Koyama obtains information regarding the embedded device from the stored information in the local computer without any interaction with the embedded device (FF 5). We therefore conclude that Koyama cannot anticipate the claimed subject matter since the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in the reference showing that the remote maintenance/diagnosis apparatus 12 interacts with the embedded device. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we find that the Examiner erred in finding that Koyama anticipates Appellant’s claimed invention by disclosing the step of “interacting with the embedded device from the remote computer system responsive to the service request,” as recited in claim 6. Similarly, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 32, which requires interaction between the remote computer and the embedded device, nor of claims 7-31 and 33-41 depending from claims 6 and 32. Appeal 2009-005785 Application 10/260,834 6 ORDER The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 6-41 is reversed. REVERSED babc COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON 1400 CRESCENT GREEN SUITE 300 CARY, NC 27518 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation