Trevor Fiatal

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

15231713 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
15/231,713 08/08/2016 Trevor Fiatal 455/023/4 UTIL 9675
118194 7590 09/30/2019
NK Patent Law- Seven Networks
4917 Waters Edge Drive
Suite 275
Raleigh, NC 27606
EXAMINER
PARK, JEONG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 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 FIATAL
____________________

Appeal 2019-000687
Application 15/231,7131
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–6 and 16–29.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is a system for providing mobile device services
with web-based access to data objects. Spec. ¶ 2. A mobile device sends
authentication information to a relay server, which executes a connection
application to establish a communication to a web access server. The relay

1 Appellant states the real party in interest is Seven Networks, LLC. App. Br.
2.
2 Claims 7–15 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-000687
Application 15/231,713

2
server than transmits the authentication information to the web access server
associated with a data store hosting a data object. Once the web access
server authenticates the user, the data object is provided from the data store
to the relay server, which then provides the data store to the mobile device.
Spec. ¶ 17.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of providing a mobile device with access to
email data, the method comprising:
hosting the email data on a data storage server;
providing, by a web access server that is communicatively
coupled to the data storage server, remote access to the email
data;
providing, by a relay server, identifying information of a
user of the mobile device to the web access server for
authenticating the user and establishing a connection between the
mobile device and the data storage server;
passing, by the relay server, the email data between the
mobile device and the data
storage server, such that the relay server does not store the
email data; and
enabling, by an email access application executable on the
mobile device, access to the email data on the data storage server, the
email data being accessed through the relay server.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Onyon US 2005/0038863 A1 Feb. 17, 2005
Ivanov US 2005/0257057 A1 Nov. 17, 2005
Backholm US 2007/0019610 A1 Jan. 25, 2007
Shim ’415 US 2008/0244415 A1 Oct. 2, 2008
Shim ’487 WO 2007/058487 May 24, 2007
Appeal 2019-000687
Application 15/231,713

3
Claims 1–4, 16, 18–22, 25, and 27–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shim ’415 and Ivanov.
Claims 5, 6, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shim ’415, Ivanov, and Backholm.
Claims 17 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shim ’415, Ivanov, and Onyon.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed May 29, 2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct.
26, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 27, 2018) for
their respective details.

ISSUE
Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issue:
Does the combination of Shim ’415 and Ivanov teach or suggest
providing, by a relay server, identifying information of a user of the mobile
device to the web access server for authenticating the user and establishing a
connection between the mobile device and the data storage server?

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1–4, 16, 18–22, 25, and 27–29
Independent method claim 1 recites “providing, by a relay server,
identifying information of a user of the mobile device to the web access
server for authenticating the user and establishing a connection between the
mobile device and the data storage server” (emphasis added). Independent
claim 19 recites a relay server, and independent claim 28 recites a system for
Appeal 2019-000687
Application 15/231,713

4
providing a mobile device with access to email data, including analogous
limitations.
The Examiner finds that control server 20 of Shim corresponds to the
claimed relay server. Ans. 4. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner now
further finds that “Shim [’415]’s control server [20] works as both the web
access server and relay server.” Ans. 9. (As Appellant observes, this finding
contradicts the Examiner’s contemporaneous finding that Shim ’415 “does
not explicitly teach the web access server.” Reply Br. 2; Ans. 4.)
Notwithstanding these findings, the Examiner subsequently finds that
Shim ’415 teaches the recited “establishing a connection between the mobile
device and the data storage server” in that Shim ’415 teaches “when the
remote computer is not available, allowing the mobile device to directly gain
access to the mail server . . . and receive a mail, or allowing the mobile
device to gain access to the control server and receive a mail, which is
received and stored by the control server that gains access to the mail
server.” Ans. 4; Shim ’415 ¶ 19.
This interpretation of Shim ’415 by the Examiner is inconsistent with
the Examiner’s reading of claim elements onto systems in the reference. As
mentioned, the Examiner equates control server 20 of Shim ’415 with the
claimed relay server. Ans. 3. For the control server 20 of Shim ’415 to
receive email data, it must communicate with remote computer 10, which
then communicates with mail server 40 (which the Examiner equates with
the claimed data storage server). Shim ’415 Fig. 3. If, under the Examiner’s
reading, “remote computer [10] is not available,” control server 20 of Shim
’415 (the “relay server” claimed) cannot establish a connection such that
mail server 40 can be contacted. To the extent that the Examiner is relying
Appeal 2019-000687
Application 15/231,713

5
on the embodiment illustrated in Figure 4 of Shim ’415, we agree with
Appellant that this embodiment does not include control server 20, which
the Examiner equates to the “relay server” required by the claims.
We find that Shim ’415 does not teach the claim limitation concerning
a relay server establishing a connection between the mobile device and the
data storage server. We thus conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–4, 16, 18–22, 25, and 27–29 over Shim ’415 and Ivanov. We do
not sustain the § 103(a) rejection.
CLAIMS 5, 6, 17, 23, 24, AND 26
Claims 5, 6, and 17 depend from claim 1. Claims 23, 24, and 26
depend from claim 19.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 19, supra. We have
reviewed Backholm and Onyon and we find that they do not remedy the
deficiencies of Shim and Ivanov, described supra. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 5, 6, 23, and 24 over Shim ’415,
Ivanov, and Backholm, and we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of
claims 17 and 26 over Shim ’415, Ivanov, and Onyon, for the reasons
expressed supra with respect to independent claims 1 and 19.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Shim ’415 and Ivanov does not teach or suggest
providing, by a relay server, identifying information of a user of the mobile
device to the web access server for authenticating the user and establishing a
connection between the mobile device and the data storage server.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 16–29 is reversed.
REVERSED