2021002081 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2021)

Unify GmbH & Co. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 7, 2021

2021002081 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2021)

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. 16/172,950 10/29/2018 Yu Bao 2012P00294US01-1071 2569 88087 7590 09/07/2021 Unify c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN) 1737 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314-2727 EXAMINER KLICOS, NICHOLAS GEORGE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/07/2021 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): ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte YU BAO and JAMES SMITH ________________ Appeal 2021-002081 Application 16/172,950 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 16–35.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was conducted on August 31, 2021. A transcript of the Oral Hearing will be added in due course. We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Unify GmbH & Co. KG is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 1–15 are cancelled. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-002081 Application 16/172,950 2 INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention relates to a method and device configured to permit the communication of a changeability attribute to a communication terminal device so that a user interface displayed by that device may be updated or displayed in accordance with the changeability attributes assigned to that device or a user associated with that device. Spec. 1. Claim 16 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below with emphases added to disputed limitations: 16. A method of communicating changeability attribute information comprising: a terminal device sending a second message to a server in response to a first message that comprises information about a changeability of at least one attribute for one or more features of a service hosted by the server having been changed received from the server that hosts the service, the second message comprising information identifying the information about the at least one attribute of the first message, the terminal device being an electronic device comprising a processor connected to a non- transitory computer readable medium configured to generate a user interface for use of the service including identifiers for features comprising a first feature having a first attribute of the at least one attribute; and the terminal device updating how the user interface for the service is to be displayed in a display device connected to the terminal device in response to a third message received from the server that comprises information indicating a changeability setting for the first attribute such that the user interface is displayable so that one of: (i) the identifier of the first attribute is changed from indicating the first attribute is an unchangeable attribute to indicating that the first attribute is a changeable attribute that is adjustable by a user via input that is entered via the user interface in accordance with the information indicating the changeability setting of the third message, and Appeal 2021-002081 Application 16/172,950 3 (ii) the identifier of the first attribute is changed from indicating the first attribute is a changeable attribute that is adjustable by a user via input that is entered via the user interface to indicating that the first attribute is an unchangeable attribute that the user cannot adjust in accordance with the information indicating the changeability setting of the third message. Appeal Br. 31 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added). REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 16–18, 20, 21, 29–32, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Kiehn (US 2007/0239653 A1; published Oct. 11, 2007) and Clark (US 2004/0268125 A1; published Dec. 30, 2004). Final Act. 6–13. The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kiehn, Clark, and Taylor (US 7,421,458 B1; issued Sept. 2, 2008). Final Act. 13–14. The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kiehn, Clark, and Srour (US 2014/0020085 A1; published Jan. 16, 2014). Final Act. 14–15. The Examiner rejects claim 24–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kiehn, Clark, and Papakipos (US 2012/0278475 A1; published Nov. 1, 2012). Final Act. 15–17. The Examiner rejects claim 27, 28, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kiehn, Clark, and Vendrow (US 2011/0110511 A1; published May 12, 2011). Final Act. 17–18. Appeal 2021-002081 Application 16/172,950 4 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Clark does not teach or suggest the italicized limitations above. Ans. 4; Final Act. 7–9. Moreover, the Examiner finds Kiehn teaches a terminal device receives information regarding different form fields, some of which are unavailable based on received permissions, which the Examiner maps to the italicized limitations above. Id. at (citing Kiehn ¶¶ 17, 18, 23–27, 34–37). Moreover, the Examiner determines that Appellant does not proffer a sufficient argument responding to the Examiner’s findings. Ans. 5 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 41.67 (c)(1)(vii)). Appellant argues Kiehn teaches morphing a user interface based on licenses that are applicable to a user’s use of a service such that the morphing program “may take license information and determine that objects should be displayed and the objects should not be displayed based in the license data received,” but fails to teach the italicized limitations above. Appeal Br. 17–18 (citing ¶¶ 20–22, Figs. 2–3); Reply Br. 1–2 (citing ¶¶ 1, 21, 27, 36, 37, 39). We agree with Appellant. As an initial matter, we disagree with the Examiner’s determination that Appellant does not proffer a sufficient argument responding to the Examiner’s findings. Ans. 5 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 41.67 (c)(1)(vii)). Indeed, Appellant does distinguish Kiehn from claim 16. Appeal Br. 17–18 (citing ¶¶ 20–22, Figs. 2–3) (Appellant arguing that Kiehn teaches morphing a user interface based on licenses that are applicable to a user’s use of a service). Furthermore, the cited portions of Kiehn fail to teach a sending of a second message to a server in response to a first message and updating a user interface in response to receiving a third message from the server that is sent in response to the second message a terminal device sends to the server Appeal 2021-002081 Application 16/172,950 5 as required by the italicized limitations of claim 16 above (and similarly recited in claims 29 and 35).3 Therefore, Appellant persuades us of error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 16, 29, and 35; and (2) dependent claims 17, 18, 20, 21, and 30–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 16–18, 20, 21, 29–32, 35 103 Kiehn, Clark 16–18, 20, 21, 29–32, 35 19, 23 103 Kiehn, Clark, Taylor 19, 23 22 Kiehn, Clark, Srour 22 24–26 103 Kiehn, Clark, Papakipos 24–26 27, 28, 33, 34 103 Kiehn, Clark, Vendrow 27, 28, 33, 34 Overall Outcome 16–35 REVERSED 3 During the oral hearing held August 31, 2021, Appellant’s representative primarily argued the cited prior art, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the claimed “message sequencing” as specifically claimed and identified in italics above.