Ex Parte Jansto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

13049065 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/049,065 03/16/2011
826 7590 05/03/2016
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William Joseph Jansto
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.
063264/401393 9964
EXAMINER
SU, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM JOSEPH JANS TO
Appeal2014-008421
Application 13/049,065
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
T,,........,.-.,. T 1'. Jr TT TT""ti. r"'l ,,........,."TT A.-... T ' 1 • • , , • T'lo , , T 1
JUl'\J lVL J UKuu v Al"l, Aamznzsrranve rarenr Juages.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008421
Application 13/049,065
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for resuming a suspended sess10n, the method
compnsmg:
determining, using a processor, a presence of a user within a
predefined proximity of a first workstation; and
responsive to determining the presence of the user, causing
pre-retrieval of stored session state information for a suspended
session associated with the user before the user enters credential
information for logging onto the first workstation, wherein the
session state information comprises at least one detail of an activity
previously performed by the user on a second workstation.
5. The method of Claim l, further comprising:
receiving credential information for the user; and
responsive to the receipt of the credential information, using
the pre-retrieved session state information to resume the session.
Spano
Wolf
Prior Art
US 2005/0113969 Al
US 2009/0253498 Al
Examiner's Rejections
May 26, 2005
Oct. 8, 2009
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Wolf.
2
Appeal2014-008421
Application 13/049,065
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wolf and Spano.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the Examiner's
response to the issues raised in the Appeal Brief for the reasons given in the
Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claim 1 recites "responsive to determining the presence of the user,
causing pre-retrieval of stored session state information for a suspended
session associated with the user before the user enters credential
information." Wolf discloses resuming a suspended session when detecting
a player's tracking device within a certain range. i-fi-f 152-155. For example,
when a personal player device (PPD) is detected within 5 feet from a
docking region, a suspended session can be resumed. i1399. The docking
region can also perform PPD authentication, in addition to PPD detection.
i-fi-1377-378, 394. For example, additional information, such as biometric
information, can be used to confirm use of the player's PPD. i-f 433.
Appellant contends detecting a player's device within a certain range,
then retrieving corresponding session information, as disclosed by Wolf,
does not disclose receiving a separate set of user credentials at a later time.
App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant's contention is inconsistent with
paragraphs 377, 378, and 433 of Wolf, which disclose receiving a separate
set of user credentials, such as biometric information, after detecting the
user's device as disclosed in paragraphs 377, 378, and 399.
3
Appeal2014-008421
Application 13/049,065
Claim 5 recites "receiving credential information for the user ... to
resume the session." Appellant concedes paragraph 433 of Wolf discloses a
credentialing process, but contends the credentialing process in paragraph
433 is the same as detecting the player's location disclosed in other portions
of Wolf. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4-5. Appellant's contentions are
inconsistent with paragraphs 377, 378, 394, 399, and 433 of Wolf, which
distinguish between detecting a player's PPD using near-field
communication and authenticating the player's PPD using credential
information such as a fingerprint.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102. Appellant does not present arguments for separate
patentability of claims 9 and 18. We sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
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
Appeal2014-008421
Application 13/049,065
5