Ex Parte HARRIS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2018

13674229 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/674,229 11/12/2012
29683 7590 08/29/2018
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202
SHELTON, CT 06484-6212
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John M. HARRIS
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.
863.0635.Ul (US) 2325
EXAMINER
HACKENBERG,RACHELJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2018 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):
USPTO@HSPATENT.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN M. HARRIS, GERALD GORMER, and
GERALD GUTOWSKI
Appeal2018-000139
Application 13/674,229 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-22, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to
provid[ing] a mechanism for using the resources of [a] wireless
network more efficiently by controlling prefetching through
economic means by providing incentives in the form of discounts
or reductions to encourage users to prefetch at a specified time
or location where loading or signal strength in the wireless
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Solutions and
Networks Oy. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000139
Application 13/674,229
network might be more favorable than at the user's location at a
given time.
Spec. ,r 30.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a request from a user equipment (UE) for data
from an application provider through a wireless network;
communicating by said application provider through said
wireless network to said user equipment an effective rate policy
relating to data to be deducted from an allotment of data
accessible to a user during a period of time relative to data
downloaded to said user equipment, said effective rate policy
being generated by said wireless network based on network
conditions and being applicable upon satisfaction by the user
equipment of UE conditions set by a charging system at said
application provider; and
sending said data at said effective rate policy to said user
equipment when said UE conditions are satisfied.
Rejections2
Claims 1-14 and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Raleigh (US 2014/0094159 Al;
published Apr. 3, 2014), Short (US 2015/0236965 Al; published Aug. 20,
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief filed March 6,
2017 ("Br.") as well as the following documents for their respective details:
the Final Action mailed July 25, 2016 ("Final Act.") and the Examiner's
Answer mailed July 20, 2017 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2018-000139
Application 13/674,229
2015), and Kashanian (US 2013/0030960 Al; published Jan. 31, 2013).
Final Act. 2-39.
Claim 15 stands rejected over the combination of Raleigh, Short,
Kashanian, and Callard (US 2013/017 6846 A 1; published July 11, 2013 ).
Final Act. 39--41.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Raleigh, Short, Kashanian, Callard,
and Harrang (US 8,463,933 B2; issued June 11, 2013). Final Act. 41--45.
ANALYSIS 3
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
Claim 1 recites "an effective rate policy relating to data to be deducted
from an allotment of data accessible to a user during a period of time."
Appellants argue that neither Short nor Kashanian disclose the recited
effective rate policy. Br. 12-15.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error for the reasons
stated by the Examiner. Ans. 2-9.
In particular, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because
they attack the references individually, but the Examiner's rejection is based
on what the combined teachings of the references would have taught or
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
3 Because Appellants argue the rejections of all claims based on arguments
presented with respect to claim 1, we review claim 1 and, except for our
ultimate decision, do not mention the remaining claims.
3
Appeal2018-000139
Application 13/674,229
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references."); see also In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) ("the test [for obviousness] is what the
combined teachings of [those] references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-22.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
4