2019002953 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2020)

WiFiZapper, Inc

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 4, 2020

2019002953 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2020)

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. 13/915,273 06/11/2013 Michael Oslund T0549.0003/P003 8336 24998 7590 08/04/2020 Blank Rome LLP 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-5403 EXAMINER HOPE, DARRIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/04/2020 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): WashingtonDocketing@blankrome.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL OSLUND, ISAAC DUDEK, and JONATHAN STRIETZEL Appeal 2019-002953 Application 13/915,273 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. PUR CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “WiFiZapper, Inc.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-002953 Application 13/915,273 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention relates to “disabling traffic from a specific device . . . [to] a WiFi network.” Spec., Abst. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of argued subject matter. 1. A method of controlling internet access, the method comprising: displaying on a user interface a list of devices connected to the internet via a controlled device; receiving input from a user via the user interface regarding permission of one or more devices to access the internet via the controlled device; and sending permission information to the controlled device to update the permission of one or more devices to access the internet via the controlled device; and wherein said steps of receiving the input from the user and sending the permission information include: (1) a first step of selecting a first device from the list of devices displayed on the user interface, and thereby blocking the first device from accessing the internet; and (2) subsequently, a second step of selecting the first device from the list of devices displayed on the user interface, and thereby permitting the first device to access the user network. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix (paragraphing and emphases added). Rejection Claims 1–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hopmann (US 2007/0130286 A1; June 7, 2007), Liu (US 2006/0236376 A1; Oct. 19, 2006), Oerton (US 2011/0294502 A1; Appeal 2019-002953 Application 13/915,273 3 Dec. 1, 2011), and Chaudhri (US 2007/0150842 A1; June 28, 2007). Non-Final Act. 2–15. OPINION Appellant argues claims 1–15 as a group, focusing on subject matter common to independent claims 1 and 11. Appeal Br. 3–9. We present our analysis with reference to claim 1. For the following reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 and accordingly sustain the rejection for claims 1–15. Appellant contends claim steps (1) and (2), emphasized supra, are not taught or suggested by Oerton, Chaudhri, or their combination. Appeal Br. 3–7; Reply Br. 1–5. Specifically, Appellant contends Oerton’s invention does not teach or suggest claim step (2) because: The [displayed] list (Figs. 11A, 11B) can be used to select (highlight) and disconnect (1116) a currently-connected device. The list (Figs. 11A, 11B) cannot, however, be used to reestablish a connection . . . for a Past Client. . . . . . . [T]he process of reestablishing a connection . . . is initiated by the Past Client, which causes a notification/alert 1120 (Fig. 11C)[.] In other words, . . . reestablishment of connection . . . would be initiated by that device . . . [and] involve the generation of the display that is shown in Fig. 11C (¶ 105). Reply Br. 3–4 (original emphases omitted); see also Appeal Br. 4–5. Appellant contends Chaudhri’s invention does not teach or suggest claim step (1) because: Even if one were to assume for the sake of argument that the [displayed] unlock images 1002, 1008 of Chaudhri [(Figs. 10, 11A–B)] constitute a list of devices, it is clear that Chaudhri Appeal 2019-002953 Application 13/915,273 4 does not suggest the images 1002, 1008 can or should be used to lock the devices[.] Reply Br. 5 (citing Chaudhri ¶¶ 99–100); see also Appeal Br. 5–7. Appellant does not dispute that the above features of Oerton and Chaudhri respectively teach or suggest claim steps (1) and (2), but rather contends it would not have been obvious to combine the features (and thus achieve claim steps (1) and (2) in combination) because: By the time the Oerton device 100 gets to the reestablishment screen (Fig. 11C), the list shown in Figs. 11A and 11B no longer exists[.] . . . The prior art references [therefore], even when considered together, would not have suggested [adding the unlock (i.e., reestablishment) teachings] of Chaudhri [(Figs. 10, 11A–B)] to the list shown in Figs. 11A and 11B of Oerton. Reply Br. 5; see also Appeal Br. 7; Non Final Act. 5–6 (modifying the proposed combination of prior art by adding claim steps (1) and (2) respectively in view of Oerton and Chaudhri). We are unpersuaded of error because Appellant’s arguments neglects the proposed modification of Hopmann’s invention in view of Liu, Oerton, and Chaudhri. Specifically, the rejection begins with Hopmann’s network map 301 that displays and controls the connections of a local area network (LAN) to the Internet and local devices. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Hopmann ¶ 35; Fig. 3). In view of Liu’s buttons 302, 304, the devices of Hopmann’s map are ‘one-touch’ denied (i.e., blocked) and granted (i.e., permitted) access to a network. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Liu ¶¶ 26, 28, 32; Figs. 3A– B). In view of Oerton’s list 1110 and block button 1116, an individual device is denied and granted access by first selecting the device in Hopmann’s map 301 (and then performing the ‘one-touch’ denial and grant Appeal 2019-002953 Application 13/915,273 5 of access). Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Oerton ¶ 105; Fig. 11B); see also Ans. 3–4. In view of Chaudhri’s un/lock sliders 1002, 1008, the selected device is ‘one-touch’ denied and granted access by transitioning a slider between deny and grant states. Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Chaudhri ¶¶ 64–68, 81, 99– 102; Figs. 10, 11A–C). The addition of Oerton’s and Chaudhri’s teachings to the combination of Hopmann’s and Liu’s teachings, the overall combination achieves the “toggle” functionality of Appellant’s Figure 5 and thus plainly suggests claim steps (1) and (2) (Appeal Br. 2–3).2 OVERALL CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–15 § 103 Hopmann, Liu, Oerton, Chaudhri 1–15 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this Appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 2 We need not (and do not) address the Examiner’s alternative finding, presented in response to Appellant’s arguments, that Oerton alone teaches or suggests claim steps (1) and (2). See Ans. 3–4 (alternative finding); Reply Br. 4 (addressing this alternative finding).