Ex Parte Slack et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2018

14250616 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2018)

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.
14/250,616 04/11/2014 Stuart Slack 7888-08621 9082
81310 7590 01/24/2018
Mevertnns; HnnH Kivlin Knwe.rt Rr Ci (ArmleT
EXAMINER
P.O. BOX 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
FANG, PAKEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2018 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg @ gmail .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STUART SLACK, BRENDAN A. McCARTHY,
CARSTEN GUENTHER, and
CHRISTOPHER BROOKE SHARP1
Appeal 2017-001028
Application 14/250,616
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—20. App. Br. 2.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 Appellants list Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed
January 4, 2016, as corrected May 10, 2016 (“App. Br.”) 1.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents, for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
August 10, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 12,
2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed October 11, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2017-001028
Application 14/250,616
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
Methods and systems are presented for remotely
commanding a mobile device. In one aspect, a method includes
receiving input identifying a mobile device, presenting to a user
one or more remote commands corresponding to the mobile
device, receiving user input selecting a remote command from
the one or more presented remote commands, generating a
remote command message instructing the mobile device to
execute the selected remote command, and transmitting the
remote command message to a server for publication in a
message topic.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
claims:
1. A computer-implemented method of remotely
commanding a mobile device, the method comprising:
by a computing device:
receiving input uniquely identifying a mobile device,
wherein the mobile device is remotely located from the
computing device;
displaying a plurality of remote commands available to be
performed by the mobile device, wherein the displaying includes
identifying at least one of the plurality of remote commands as
enabled for execution by the mobile device and at least one other
of the plurality of remote commands as disabled for execution by
the mobile device;
receiving input selecting a remote command from the
plurality of displayed remote commands;
generating a remote command message instructing the
mobile device to execute the selected remote command; and
transmitting the remote command message to a server to
communicate the remote command message to the mobile
device.
2
Appeal 2017-001028
Application 14/250,616
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pietruszka (US 2007/0226778 Al;
published Sept. 27, 2007).
Claims 3, 4, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pietruszka and Kuz (US 2005/0111468 Al; published
May 26, 2005).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pietruszka and Bennett (US 2010/0130178 Al; published May 27, 2010).
Claims 7 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pietruszka and Chen (US 2006/0271696 Al; published
Nov. 30, 2006).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Pietruszka discloses every limitation of
independent claim 1. Final Act. 2—3. For example, the Examiner finds that
the claimed step of displaying a plurality of enabled and disabled remote
commands is depicted in Figures 9A, 9C, and 9D, as well as discussed in the
associated passages of the Specification. Final Act. 3 (citing Pietruszka
H 54, 65, 104—106, 108—112). The Examiner further finds that these same
passages also teach the claim limitation of “receiving input selecting a
remote command from the plurality of displayed remote commands.” Id.
(citing Pietruszka, FIGS. 9A, 9C, and 9D; || 104—106, 108—111).
3
Appeal 2017-001028
Application 14/250,616
Appellants point out that “Pietruszka is broadly concerned with
controlling access to a wireless communications device using
communications with other, trusted devices.” App. Br. 5. Appellants urge
that the cited portions of Pietruszka perform two functions relating to this
objective: the first function “is concerned with controlling the creation of
trusted relationships by setting an ‘operational state’ of the wireless
communications device” {id. at 6 (citing inter alia Pietruszka, FIGS. 9A—B,
Tflf 54, 65, 104—106)), and the second function “is concerned with controlling
access to functions of the wireless communications device based on the
presence of a device that has already established a trusted relationship” {id.
at 6—8 (citing inter alia Pietruszka, FIGS. 9C—D, H 49, 50, 82—86, 112,
114)).
Appellants then contend
Pietruszka nowhere teaches the features of claim 1, with regard
to “identifying at least one of the plurality of remote commands
as enabled for execution by the mobile device and at least one
other of the plurality of remote commands as disabled for
execution by the mobile device;” and “generating a remote
command message instructing the mobile device to execute the
selected remote command.”
App. Br. 8.
Appellants support this general contention with the following two
specific arguments:
First, the displays of Figures 9C and 9D do not reflect a
current state of the functions of the wireless communications
device, but instead reflect the intended state to be triggered “in
the event of unauthorized use,” as plainly stated in Figure 9D.
Thus, the functions displayed there do not include “identifying at
least one of the plurality of remote commands as enabled for
execution by the mobile device and at least one other of the
4
Appeal 2017-001028
Application 14/250,616
plurality of remote commands as disabled for execution by the
mobile device,” as recited by claim 1.
Second, the remote commands taught by Pietruszka
consist of commands to change settings to enable or disable
certain functions. Thus, Figures 9C and 9D do not identify “at
least one of the plurality of remote commands as enabled for
execution by the mobile device and at least one other of the
plurality of remote commands as disabled for execution by the
mobile device,” but instead illustrate whether the functionality of
the wireless communications device will become enabled or
disabled.
For example, regardless of the current setting shown (i.e.,
“enabled” or “disabled”) for the “Radio” function in Figures 9C
and 9D, a remote command could still be generated to instruct
the wireless communications device to disable the radio “in the
event of unauthorized use.” Thus, even if the “Radio” function
is listed as “disabled,” the remote command is not in any way
disabled. This illustrates that the labels of “Enable” and
“Disable” in Figure 9C and the labels of “Enabled” and
“Disabled” in Figure 9D do not identify whether remote
commands are “enabled for execution” or “disabled for
execution,” but instead refer merely to the operational states of
functions of the wireless communications device.
App. Br. 9 (paragraph formatting modified).
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. Claim 1 requires displaying a
plurality of command options including an enabled command and a disabled
command. App. Br. 3, Claims App’x. Claim 1 further requires that a
command input is received as a result of selecting one of the commands
from the display that is enabled. Id. The Examiner has not established,
though, that Pietruszka teaches selecting a command, itself, using
Pietruszka’s display. The cited portions of Pietruszka merely teach that the
5
Appeal 2017-001028
Application 14/250,616
displays of FIGs. 9A—D can be used to set whether a function or command
will be enabled or disabled in the event of future unauthorized use.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, of independent claims 11
and 18, which set forth similar limitations, and of claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15,
and 20, which depend from these independent claims.
With respect to the remaining rejections of dependent claims 3, 4, 7,
9, 12, 16, 17, and 19, the Examiner does not rely upon the teachings of the
additional references, Kuz, Bennett, and Chen, to cure the deficiency of the
anticipation rejection, explained above. See Final Act. 7—14. Accordingly,
we likewise reverse the obviousness rejections of these claims for the
reasons set forth above.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—20 are reversed.
REVERSED
6