Ex Parte Desire

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 29, 2019

14467665 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/467,665 08/25/2014 79680 7590 01/31/2019 LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP A2000 One Main Street, Suite 1100 Cambridge, MA 02142 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Joel Desire 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. S2181-702019(BLG-0140) 9440 EXAMINER PAULINO, LENIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2193 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2019 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): docketing@LALaw.com CKent@LALaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOEL DESIRE 1 Appeal2018-006505 Application 14/467,665 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Schneider Electric IT Corporation. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-006505 Application 14/467,665 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's application relates to software application development and deployment for mobile computing devices, particularly with respect to a user application that includes widgets for controlling physical devices in an identified space. See Spec. 1:6-1:8, 11:6-12:6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: one or more memory elements collectively storing: a plurality of widgets including a plurality of default identifiers; and a plurality of identifiers of a plurality of devices associated with an identified space; at least one processor in data communication with the one or more memory elements; a deployment component executable by the at least one processor and configured to: receive a request to bind the plurality of widgets to the plurality of devices; and bind, in response to receiving the request, the plurality of widgets to the plurality of devices by replacing one or more default identifiers of the plurality of default identifiers with one or more identifiers of the plurality of identifiers, wherein the request to bind is included in a request to deploy and the deployment component is further configured to transmit, in response to receiving the request to deploy, a user app to a mobile computing device, the user app including the 2 Appeal2018-006505 Application 14/467,665 plurality of widgets and being configured to monitor and control the plurality of devices via the plurality of widgets. The Examiner's Rejection Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2015/0222691 Al; Aug. 6, 2015) and Ayyagari (US 2002/0062405 Al; May 23, 2002). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Zhang and Ayyagari teaches or suggests all the limitations of independent claim 1, including that Zhang teaches "the deployment component is further configured to transmit, in response to receiving the request to deploy, a user app to a mobile computing device, the user app including the plurality of widgets," as recited in independent claim 1. Final Act. 5-6. Appellant contends the Examiner's combination fails to disclose the claim 1 feature of transmitting to a mobile computing device a user app that includes widgets. App. Br. 5. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Zhang describes a hub application operating on a user device that can receive widgets for controlling physical devices. Zhang ,r,r 13-14. In an exemplary method, the hub application detects a physical device and extracts device information that identifies the device. Zhang ,r,r 15-17. Based on the extracted device information, the hub application receives a widget that contains template information corresponding to the physical device. Zhang ,r 18. Then, the hub application may request and receive a template from an application server, and the widget may be rendered on the user device using the template. Zhang ,r 32. Zhang's hub application exists on the user device 3 Appeal2018-006505 Application 14/467,665 prior to receiving widgets and templates for use in controlling detected physical devices, contrary to the claim 1 limitation of transmitting "a user app to a mobile computing device, the user app including the plurality of widgets." In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that it is not Zhang's hub application that meets the claimed "user app," but rather the "hub application in Zhang is an application that renders the user app ( collection of widgets)." Ans. 4. We disagree with the Examiner that Zhang's widgets collectively comprise a "user app" as recited in claim 1. Even if a widget can itself be considered an application, sending widgets to Zhang's hub application does not meet the limitation of transmitting a single "user app including the plurality of widgets." The Examiner also concludes [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify Zhang' s teaching of widget distribution from a manufacture to a hub application with Ayyagari's teaching to include pre-installation packaged pre-binded with the proper values needed for the widgets to communicate with the physical device( s) and transmitting a software package to a user device. Ans. 4--5. The Examiner has not shown that Ayyagari teaches sending a software package to a mobile computing device as recited in claim 1. Rather, Ayyagari teaches loading a pre-installation package that includes various software applications on target computers prior to shipping the computers from a factory site to a customer site. Ayyagari ,r,r 25-26. Accordingly, Ayyagari does not cure the deficiency of Zhang discussed above with respect to the claim 1 feature of transmitting a user app that includes widgets to a mobile computing device. 4 Appeal2018-006505 Application 14/467,665 We are, therefore, constrained to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 11 and 20, which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 3-10 and 13-19 for the same reasons. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-11, and 13- 20. REVERSED 5