Ex Parte Sinn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

14180610 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
14/180,610 02/14/2014 Richard P. Sinn 3914US01 1068
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD P. SINN, ALLAN M. YOUNG, and
THOMAS T. DONAHUE
Appeal 2017-003820
Application 14/180,610
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-003820
Application 14/180,610
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The invention relates to generating a session identifier for members of
an image sharing session to use as a credential for joining the session. Spec.
13. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method implemented by one or more computing
devices, the method comprising:
receiving a request from an image sharing session
originator to initiate an image sharing session usable by a group
of users to independently share images;
responsive to the request from the image sharing session
originator, generating a session identifier for the image sharing
session, the session identifier configured to:
identify the image sharing session; and
be distributable to the group of users and act as a
credential for each of the users to join the image sharing
session as a member such that each user of the group is
permitted to add images to the image sharing session as an
individual and view images from other users of the group
that are within the image sharing session without further
authentication; and
forming a communication that includes the session
identifier and that is configured for communication to the image
sharing session originator usable for distribution of the session
identifier to the group of users.
2
Appeal 2017-003820
Application 14/180,610
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gautney US 2004/0037240 A1 Feb. 26, 2004
Bahl US 7,003,574 B1 Feb. 21,2006
Hito US 2011/0219427 A1 Sept. 8,2011
Knysz US 2013/0018960 A1 Jan. 17, 2013
Bentley US 2013/0066978 A1 Mar. 14,2013
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10—17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bentley and Knysz.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bentley, Knysz, and Hito.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bentley, Knysz, and Bahl.
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bentley, Knysz, and Gautney.
ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend:
[Tjhere is nothing mentioned in Bentley about the
communication session identifier, item 208, being usable as a
credential to join the conference as a member. While it can be
argued that the communication session identifier can be used to
identify the conference, a separate access control system
(conference bridge 204) is needed in Bentley to facilitate the
members joining the conference and thus requires further action
on the part of a user in Bentley.
3
Appeal 2017-003820
Application 14/180,610
Br. 13. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Bentley discloses:
[A] system and method for an intermediary communication
system having a unique identification which can forward,
transfer, and otherwise communicate information to
communication session members.
Bentley 12. Specifically,
system 100 configured in accordance with this disclosure
generates a communication session identifier associated with a
conference, where the conference is associated with a set of
participants (602), and then relays a communication directed to
the communication session identifier to at least one of the set of
participants (604).
Bentley 142. Or, described another way, “[t]he system receives
communications addressed to the communication session identifier and
subsequently relays the communications to conference participants.”
Bentley 130. Accordingly, Bentley teaches that a conference participant can
send a communication addressed to a communication session identifier, and
the communication is in turn forwarded to other conference participants. We
agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4) and find Bentley’s communication
session identifier meets the limitation of a “session identifier configured to: .
. . act as a credential for each of the users to join the . . . session as a
member.”
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “a separate access
control system (conference bridge 204) is needed in Bentley to facilitate the
members joining the conference and thus requires further action on the part
of a user in Bentley.” Br. 13. Bentley’s conference bridge is the physical
hardware that performs the relaying of communications among conference
participants. Appellants have not shown Bentley’s conference bridge
4
Appeal 2017-003820
Application 14/180,610
requires a participant to take further action or use an additional credential
besides the communication session identifier to communicate with other
participants. Although Bentley discloses “[i]n some embodiments, security
and authentication can be enforced” such that “the sender may need to be
authenticated either using their user ID or password, or an authentication
token specific to the session and perhaps the user,” Bentley does not make
such authentication mandatory. Bentley 131 (emphases added). Rather,
Bentley, viewed as a whole, teaches that merely addressing a communication
to the communication session identifier, i.e., “a credential,” can be sufficient
to share information, i.e., “to join the . . . session as a member.”
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2—12 not specifically argued separately. Appellants present
similar arguments for claim 19 as presented for claim 1, and these arguments
are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we
also sustain claim 19, and claim 20 which depends therefrom.
Additionally, regarding claim 13, Appellants contend “Bentley fails to
teach or suggest, ‘each of the session identifiers configured to: comprise a
string of one or more text characters that are human readable,’ as recited in
claim 13.” Br. 15. However, as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 6), Bentley
discloses “the email address associated with the communication session
identifier 208.” Bentley 133. An email address meets the claim 13
limitation of “a string of one or more text characters that are human
readable.” We are, therefore, also not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 13, and claims 14—18 not specifically argued separately.
5
Appeal 2017-003820
Application 14/180,610
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is
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
6