Ex Parte Ahrens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 20, 2016

11664175 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 11/664,175 0312912007 88087 7590 04/22/2016 Fritzsche Patent c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN) P. 0. Box 1404 Alexandria, VA 22313-1404 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Werner Ahrens 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2004Pl3970WOUS 6943 EXAMINER PATEL, HITESHKUMARR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2441 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/22/2016 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): ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WERNER AHRENS and HEINRICH BARTELS Appeal2014-002309 Application 11/664,175 Technology Center 2400 Before KEN B. BARRETT, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of a rejection of claims 20-28, 34--37, and 39--44, all remaining claims of the application. 1 We heard oral argument March 24, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed August 20, 2013), Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," mailed November 27, 2013), the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 21, 2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 16, 2013), and the Specification ("Spec.," as amended March 29, 2007). Appeal2014-002309 Application 11/664,175 THE INVENTION The invention relates to "a communication system comprising a message processing computer and a multiplicity of communication networks, each of which has an interface computer." Spec. 1: 6-9. The message processing computer, responsive to a request from a communication device to locate another device, queries a database to determine which of multiple computer networks have information relating to the requested device. Spec. 15:28-17:25. Claim 20, reproduced below, is illustrative with disputed limitations in italics: 20. A communication system, comprising: a message processing computer; a plurality of communication networks, each of the networks comprising an interface computer linked to the message processing computer and a plurality of communication devices connected to the interface computer; at least one database, the at least one database comprising a plurality of identification codes corresponding to communication devices located within at least one communication network of the plurality of communication networks such that a query of the at least one database based on the identification code identifies any communication device assigned to the identification code; and wherein a first communication device transmits a request message to the message processing computer, the request message comprising a first identification code that is assigned to a user associated with a plurality of target communication devices, at least one of the target communication devices being in a different one of the plurality of communication networks than another one of the target communication devices; and in response to the request message, the message processing computer queries the at least one database to 2 Appeal2014-002309 Application 11/664,175 determine the target communication devices assigned to the first identification code such that the communication networks that the target communication devices are located within are identifiable; and wherein the message processing computer sends a communication network request message to each interface computer of the communication networks that the target communication devices are located within, each of the communication network request messages requesting at least one further parameter related to the target communication device in the network of that interface computer; and wherein each interface computer of the communication networks sends a response message having the at least one further parameter to the message processing computer; and wherein the message processing computer evaluates the at least one further parameter of the response messages to determine a location of a target communication device of the target communication devices that the user is currently using. THE REJECTION Claims 20-28, 34--37, and 39--44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bahl (US 2002/0095486 Al; published July 18, 2002) and O'Toole (US 7,139,820 Bl; issued Nov. 21, 2006). Final Act. 6---12. ISSUE Appellants' arguments present the dispositive issue: Has the Examiner erred by finding the combination of Bahl and O'Toole teaches or suggests that the message processing computer sends a request to the interface computer of each of the multiple computer networks and receives a 3 Appeal2014-002309 Application 11/664,175 response from each interface computer, as recited in independent claims 20 and 34? ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 20, the Examiner finds Bahl teaches sending a request from a message processing computer to an interface computer and the interface computer sending a response back. Final Act. 8 (citing Bahl i-fi-130, 31, 35, 42--45, Fig. 4). The Examiner then finds Bahl does not disclose "sending a request message to each interface computer of each of the networks," but finds O'Toole, in combination with Bahl, provides such a disclosure. Id. at 9; Ans. 4--5. Appellants argue Bahl fails to disclose any interface computers as recited and further argue the combination of Bahl and O'Toole fails to teach or suggest sending a request from a message processing computer to each interface computer of multiple networks. App. Br. 19-20. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Bahl discloses any interface computers. Though not specifically identified by the Examiner, Bahl shows server 202 coupled with a plurality of mobile devices 218, 220, 222 via a single network access point 216. Bahl Fig. 2. Server 202 of Figure 2 queries its database 206 for information about an identified mobile device and, thus, appears to be the recited message processing computer of claim 20 in the Examiner's rejection. See Bahl i-fi-130-32; see also Ans. 4 (citing Bahl Fig. 2, i1 30). Thus, we find no teaching or suggestion in Bahl of an interface computer as recited, to which the message processing computer sends a request. Neither do we find an interface computer in Bahl that returns a response to such a request. 4 Appeal2014-002309 Application 11/664,175 The Examiner relies on O'Toole in the proposed combination for teaching or suggesting multiple such interface computers (one per network) to which the message processing computer sends requests and which send a response back. Specifically, the Examiner maps the recited interface computers (one per network) to nodes 105-1, 105-2, and 105-3 of O'Toole's Figure 1 and associated descriptive text. Ans. 5 (citing 0' Toole Fig. 1, Fig. 3, 11 :6-20; 14:46-63, 19:35--47). Appellants argue "there is no disclosure or suggestion of any interface computers responding to requests for information sent by a message processing computer." Reply Br. 2. Similarly, Appellants contend "[t]here is no suggestion of multiple interface computers each responding to a request message from a message processing computer." Reply Br. 3. We agree with Appellants. Nodes 105-1, 105-2, and 105-3 are network appliances (e.g., routers, switches, etc.). O'Toole 14:59-63. As such, a request from a first device (O'Toole Fig. 1 (server 120)) is directed toward a second device (id. (target device 140)) via a path through one or more intermediate network appliances (id. (nodes 105-1, 105-2, and 105-3)). O'Toole does not teach that a message is sent to each of nodes 105-1, 105-2, and 105-3 as required from the claimed message processing computer to the recited interface computers. Furthermore, O'Toole does not disclose that each intermediate node on the path between server 120 and target device 140 sends a response back to a message processing computer as required of the claimed interface computers. See Reply Br. 2--4. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred by finding the combination of Bahl and O'Toole teaches or suggests the disputed limitations as recited in independent claim 20 and as similarly recited in 5 Appeal2014-002309 Application 11/664,175 independent claim 34. For the same reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 21-28, 35-37, and 39--44. Appellants raise additional issues in the Briefs. We are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue discussed supra, which is dispositive as to the rejection of all claims. Therefore, we do not reach the additional issues. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 20- 28, 34--37, and 39--44 is reversed. REVERSED 6