Trevor Fiatal

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2019

14457989 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2019)

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.
14/457,989 08/12/2014 Trevor Fiatal 455/024/3 UTIL 5420
118194 7590 08/30/2019
NK Patent Law- Seven Networks
4917 Waters Edge Drive
Suite 275
Raleigh, NC 27606
EXAMINER
BADAWI, ANGIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2019 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):
abackholm@seven.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
usptomail@nkpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte TREVOR FIATAL1
________________

Appeal 2018-005289
Application 14/457,989
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–12, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. App. Br. 5–15.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant lists Seven Networks, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief filed April 25, 2017 (“App. Br.”) at 2.
2 In this decision we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as
the following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
February 13, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed February
23, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed April 23, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-005289
Application 14/457,989

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A method for accessing multimedia content from a server
for consumption of the multimedia content at a mobile device.
The method includes detecting user interaction with a graphic
user interface of the mobile device and translating, by the mobile
device, user interaction with the graphic user interface into a
command. The user interaction includes request to retrieve or
access the multimedia content from a server. The multimedia
content includes the command to retrieve the multimedia content
from a server in a message generated at the mobile device. The
method includes transmitting the message to the server for
execution of instructions associated with the command included
in the message for multimedia content access and retrieval and
receiving the multimedia content for access at the mobile device
as a result of the execution of the instructions associated with the
command included in the message.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis and
formatting, illustrates the appealed claims:
1. A method for accessing multimedia content from a server
for consumption of the multimedia content at a mobile device,
the method comprising:
detecting user interaction with a web-based graphic user
interface of the mobile device;
translating, by the mobile device, the user interaction with
the web-based graphic user interface into a command to access
multimedia content from a server;
wherein, the user interaction includes a request to access
the multimedia content from the server;
including the command to access the multimedia content
from the server in a short message service (SMS) message
generated at the mobile device;
Appeal 2018-005289
Application 14/457,989

3
transmitting the SMS message to the server for execution
of instructions associated, in a library of commands maintained
by the server, with the command included in the SMS message
for multimedia content access; and
receiving the multimedia content for access at the mobile
device as a result of the execution of the instructions associated
with the command included in the SMS message.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 6–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Keighran (US 2008/0287142 A1; published Nov. 20, 2008).
Final Act. 3–8.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Keighran and Canella et al. (US 2007/0150463 A1; published June 28, 2007)
(“Canella”). Final Act. 9–10.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Keighran and Liao (US Pub 2004/0021681 A1; published Feb. 5, 2004).
Final Act. 9–10.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, 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 Keighran teaches a first protocol in which an
end station 3 communicates, albeit not by SMS messaging, with a base
station 1 via communication networks 2, 4 and to receive multimedia
content. Final Act. 3 (citing, e.g., Keighran ¶¶ 262, 266, Figs. 1, 4). The
Examiner also finds that Keighran teaches a second protocol in which
Appeal 2018-005289
Application 14/457,989

4
SMS messages are sent from the end user in order for the end user to use
credits to access the server 1 and thereby receive the multimedia content. Id.
at 3–4 (citing, e.g., Keighran ¶¶ 324, 325; FIG. 7).
The examiner reasons that the combination of these two protocols
anticipates independent claim 1 because, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim language, sending the SMS message to the server
for crediting the user’s account is a prerequisite for accessing the media
content on the server. Final Act. 11–12; Ans. 11–13. The Examiner
explains, for example,
Using the broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the
broad claim language, one can argue that a user making a
selection of a menu option that automatically triggers a
generation of an SMS that is transferred to the base station
requesting access to content wherein the content is associated
with the menu option teaches translating at the user device a
command that is included in the SMS which directs the base
station to allow access/retrieval of the content if the user has
enough credits, then compressing the content and transferring it
to the end station 3.
Ans. 13 (emphasis modified).
Appellant presents, inter alia, the following two arguments. First,
Appellant argues that the second protocol relied upon by the Examiner does
not correspond to the claimed step of accessing the multimedia content via
transmission of an SMS message because Keighran’s transmission of an
SMS message only regards the payment of the second protocol—not the
initial request for content that takes place in the first protocol. App. Br. 4–7.
Specifically, Appellant argues that “the SMS messaging in Keighran only
indicates at best that a user is seeking paid access to the system or has made
Appeal 2018-005289
Application 14/457,989

5
payment, but does not include a command to access multimedia content
from a server.” Id. at 7.
Appellant secondly argues that Keighran’s SMS message is not
transmitted by the end station (3) to the base station (1). Id. Appellant
contends that “[i]nstead, Keighran describes the end station (3) transmitting
the SMS message to a predetermined number to make payment, and the
network (2) posting an indication of receipt of payment to the base
station (2).” Id.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 324 and 325 of Keighran for
disclosing the SMS message is transmitted to Keighran’s base station (1)—
or “server,” in the claim’s parlance. Final Act. 12; Ans.13. Keighran’s
relied-upon passage reads as follows:
[0324] In one example the purchasing of credits may be
achieved using a respective menu option. In this case, the
selection of the menu option automatically triggers the
generation of an SMS or other similar communication which is
transferred to a predetermined number at a premium rate. The
base station 1 can then confirm receipt of the SMS allowing the
base station 1 to credit the user account. This is typically
achieved by having the carrier network 2 post an indication of
receipt of the SMS to the base station 1.
[0325] Accordingly, redirection of the user to purchase credits
may correspond to causing the end station 3 to display the
appropriate menu option. In the case in which the
communication is an SMS, it will be appreciated that this may be
sent via the communications network 2. However, any suitable
method of obtaining payment from the user may be used.
Keighran ¶¶ 324, 325 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2018-005289
Application 14/457,989

6
We need not address Appellant’s first argument. That is, we need not
determine whether sending an SMS message for making a payment to access
a computer system reasonably can be interpreted as corresponding to
sending an SMS message for accessing multimedia content from a server, as
claimed. Nor do we need to decide whether a difference exists between a
request to “retrieve” multimedia content and a request to “access”
multimedia content (see claim 6), or if a difference does exist, what this
difference may be. We instead resolve the dispute based upon Appellant’s
second argument.
Keighran discloses that the SMS message is sent from the end unit to
the carrier network 2. Keighran ¶ 324. But Keighran does not disclose that
the SMS message is sent further from the carrier network 2 to the base
station 1. Keighran merely discloses that the “carrier network 2 post[s] an
indication of receipt of the SMS to the base station 1.” Id. That is,
Keighran’s carrier network 2 merely informs the base station 1, in some
undisclosed manner, of the end user’s credit status, and that undefined
notification results from the SMS message being sent to the carrier
network 2.
To be sure, Keighran states that “any suitable method of obtaining
payment from the user may be used.” Id. at ¶ 325. But we need not decide
whether this statement renders it possible or obvious for Keighran’s carrier
network 2 to forward the received SMS message to the base station 1. The
Examiner does not reject claim 1 under the theory that it would have been
obvious to transmit SMS messages to Keighran’s base station 1. The
Examiner, instead, rejects claim 1 under the theory that Keighran actually
discloses such SMS transmissions to the base station.
Appeal 2018-005289
Application 14/457,989

7
For these reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, of independent
claim 6, which recites similar claim language, or of claims 2 and 7–12,
which depend from claims 1 and 6.
With respect to the remaining rejections of dependent claims 3–5, the
Examiner does not rely on the additionally cited references, Cannella and
Liao, to cure the deficiency of the anticipation rejection explained above.
Final Act. 9–10. Accordingly we do not sustain the rejections of those
claims for the reasons set forth in relation to independent claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12 is reversed.

REVERSED