Ex Parte Toprani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

14319921 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 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.
14/319,921 06/30/2014 Shyam S. Toprani 90911-P9537USX1-887386 7733
65656 7590 03/02/2017
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/Apple
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
FOXX, CHICO A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHYAM S. TOPRANI, PAUL HOLDEN,
EMILY CLARK SCHUBERT, THOMAS ALSINA, SCOTT FORSTALL,
LAWRENCE G. BOLTON, NITIN GANTARA,
MITCHELL ADLER, and JESSE LEE DOROGUSKER
Appeal 2016-005684
Application 14/319,921
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005684
Application 14/319,921
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention “relates generally to communication between an
accessory and a mobile computing device and in particular to accessory
requests to launch applications on a mobile computing device.” Spec. 12.
Independent claim 6 is reproduced, below, with emphasis on disputed
subject matter.
6. An accessory for use with a mobile computing device, the
accessory comprising:
an input/output interface configured to exchange commands and
data with the mobile computing device according to an accessory
protocol; and
a controller coupled with the input/output interface, the
controller being configured to:
detect connection of the mobile computing device with the
input/output interface;
send a launch command to the mobile computing device
through the input/output interface, the launch command
requesting that the mobile computing device launch an
application, the launch command including an indication
usable by the mobile computing device to identify an
application to launch at the mobile computing device;
receive an open session message from the mobile
computing device through the input/output interface, the
open session message indicating that a communication
session has been opened for communication with a
specific application launched at the mobile computing
device; and
communicate with the specific application, wherein
communicating with the specific application includes:
2
Appeal 2016-005684
Application 14/319,921
generating a message conforming to an application
protocol that is supported by the specific
application; and
sending, by the accessory, the message within a
wrapper conforming to the accessory protocol, the
wrapper indicating that the message is to be
delivered to the communication session.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hansson (US 2008/0248835 Al; Oct. 9, 2008) and
Ananny (US 2010/0180063 Al; July 15, 2010). Final Act. 2—5 (March 13,
2015).2
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hansson, Ananny, and Goldstein (US 2004/0152457
Al; Aug. 5, 2004). Final Act. 6—11.
Claims 3 and 12—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hansson, Ananny, Goldstein, and Bolton (US 2010/
0235550 Al; Sept. 16,2010). Final Act. 11-18.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects all claims as obvious over Hansson and Ananny
(and, for some claims, over further references). As reflected by reproduced
2 As noted by the Examiner’s Answer, the Final Action incorrectly cites
Ananny’s publication number as being US 2008/0320190 Al (to Lydon).
Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 2. The above listing of rejections provides the
correct publication number of Ananny. As also noted by the Examiner’s
Answer, Appellants were plainly aware of the rejection’s reliance on
Ananny (i.e., did not address Lydon). Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2016-005684
Application 14/319,921
claim 6, the Examiner and Appellants dispute whether Hansson and Ananny
teach or suggest the claimed invention’s wrapped message—particularly a
message conforming to an “application protocol” but transmitted within a
wrapper conforming to an “accessory protocol.” Compare Final Act. 4—5
with Br. 8—10. The remaining claims recite similar subject matter.
Appellants argue that the Examiner unreasonably maps the claimed
application and accessory protocols respectively to Hansson’s
high-bandwidth and low-bandwidth channels by proposing, in view of
Ananny’s tunneling, to transmit Hansson’s high-bandwidth communications
within a wrapper for low-bandwidth communications. Br. 8—10. Appellants
contend that the modification would unreasonably further entail transmitting
of: some high-bandwidth communications over a low-bandwidth channel
(id. at 9); or all communications over a high-bandwidth channel (id. at 9—
10).
Appellants mischaracterize the rejection. The Examiner does not map
the claimed protocols to respective channels of Hansson’s communications
or propose to alter the bandwidths of Hansson’s communications. Final Act.
4—5; Ans. 2—9. Rather, the Examiner reads the claimed wrapping (i.e.,
“application protocol” message sent within an “accessory protocol”
wrapper) on Hansson’s low-bandwidth command messages as modified for
tunneling in view of Ananny. Final Act. 4—5. The proposed result of such
tunneling is that Hansson’s low-bandwidth command messages are
conformed to an application protocol, but transmitted in a wrapper
conforming to an accessory protocol. Ans. 5. The Examiner’s Answer
explains the proposed result as follows:
4
Appeal 2016-005684
Application 14/319,921
[Hanson’s] accessory device 110 provides an indication that the
high bandwidth interface has been setup, whereby such an
indication may be received as a . . . command message (Hansson
uses the term “request”) [,] is provided via the low bandwidth
channel, and ... is conformed to the underlying protocol of the
application[.]”
[Ananny] discloses that the tunneling technique can wrap [such]
commands sent by the accessory to solve protocol
incompatibilities (see 1 [0012]-[0014] and [such wrapped]
. . . commands can be used to perform a variety of operations^]
In view of the [above] teachings ..., it would have been obvious
... to make use of a known application protocol wrapper
(tunneling) such as taught by [Ananny] in a communication
exchange between an accessory and its mobile device such as
taught by Hansson . . . [. T]his is especially true if the particular
application residing in the mobile device happens to be operating
on a different protocol than a protocol used between the mobile
device and the accessory[.]
Id. at 4—7.
Appellants do not address this combination of Goldstein and Ananny.
The most applicable Appeal Brief argument merely contends that if “the
claimed accessory communication protocol corresponds to the
low-bandwidth channel of Hansson, then the introduction of a wrapper into
that channel (or a tunneling command as allegedly taught by Ananny) would
require that high bandwidth data be transmitted in conformity with the low
bandwidth link.” Br. 9. However, contrary to Appellants’ contentions
regarding the “correspond[ing]” protocols and bandwidths, the Examiner
does not map the claimed application and accessory protocols respectively to
high-bandwidth and low-bandwidth data such that wrapping an application
protocol message within an accessory protocol wrapper would ostensibly
5
Appeal 2016-005684
Application 14/319,921
entail transmitting of high-bandwidth data (as the wrapped data) over a
low-bandwidth channel. Contrary to Appellants’ contentions regarding
Hannson’s modified communications transmitting high-bandwidth data,
Appellants do not show that the proposed tunneling/wrapping of Hansson’s
low-bandwidth command messages (to transmit an application protocol
message within an accessory protocol wrapper) would require transmitting
of an application protocol message as high-bandwidth data.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2—20, which Appellants do not argue separately.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections 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