Ex Parte Maguire et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2017

14286873 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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. 14/286,873 05/23/2014 Yael Maguire 1360F0022 9349 110828 7590 09/05/2017 Kacvinsky Daisak Bluni PLLC (1360) 430 Davis Drive Suite 150 Morrisville, NC 27560 EXAMINER OSIFADE, IDOWU O ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2666 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2017 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 @ kdbfirm .com triddle @ kdbfirm .com mfitzsimmons @ kdbfirm. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YAEL MAGUIRE, DAMIAN KOWALEWSKI, GIOVANNI COGLITORE, AARON BERNSTEIN, and FRAIDUN AKHI Appeal 2017-005215 Application 14/286,873 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-005215 Application 14/286,873 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—6, 8—13, 15—20, and 22—24.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellants’ application relates to registering a SIM card change event for a mobile device user with a social network server, where the change event can include updated contact information such as a new phone number, and propagating the change event to other mobile device users within the social network of the mobile device user. See Spec. 20-23. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system, comprising: a storage device configured to store contact information for a plurality of users; and a server device configured to: receive a SIM change event from a mobile device associated with a first user of the plurality of users, the SIM change event including updated contact information for the first user; identify one or more users from the plurality of users associated with the first user; and provide the updated contact information to one or more mobile devices associated with the one or more identified users, wherein the updated contact information is stored by an online service and updated contact information is provided to the one or more mobile devices 1 Claims 7, 14, and 21 have been canceled. 2 Appeal 2017-005215 Application 14/286,873 associated with the one or more identified users using a pointer to the stored updated contact information. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Nystrom US 2013/0237200 A1 Sep. 12, 2013 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1—6, 8—13, 15—20, and 22—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nystrom. ANALYSIS Appellants contend Nystrom fails to disclose “updated contact information is provided to the one or more mobile devices associated with the one or more identified users using a pointer to the stored updated contact information,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 13—15. We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. We first note that although Appellants and the Examiner offer separate definitions of the term “pointer,” the offered definitions are not in conflict. Appellants assert a pointer is “a data structure that includes a location or address of data that is referenced by the pointer, instead of the value of the data” (Br. 17), while the Examiner asserts a pointer is “a variable whose value is the address of another variable; a link.” Ans. 5. These two definitions have essentially the same meaning and align with 3 Appeal 2017-005215 Application 14/286,873 what we find to be the proper construction of a pointer, namely, a data structure containing an address identifying where other data is located. Nystrom discloses when a user changes a SIM card on a first mobile device 110, the device may change its connectivity information, including a phone number and an IP address. Nystrom, 143. The new connectivity information can be provided to a cloud service provider 160 such that a user of a second mobile device 190 can subscribe to changes made to the first mobile device and receive updates from the cloud service provider. Nystrom, 44-49. The Examiner finds that either of Nystrom’s phone number or IP address for the mobile device 110 is a “pointer.” Ans. 6. We disagree with the Examiner because Nystrom does not disclose using a phone number or an IP address as an address where other data, such as updated contact information, is located, as required by the term “pointer” as construed above in the context of the claim 1 language “a pointer to the stored updated contact information.” Rather, Nystrom’s phone number and IP address are the very pieces of updated connectivity information used to connect to Nystrom’s mobile device 110, and are not pointers to such information. The Examiner also finds Nystrom inherently uses a pointer to access updated contact information. Ans. 5. However, we agree with Appellants (Br. 19) that a pointer is one way to access data stored in memory, but not the only way. The Examiner has not shown Nystrom necessarily uses a pointer to retrieve updated contact information to then provide to a mobile device. We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15 which 4 Appeal 2017-005215 Application 14/286,873 recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2—6, 9—13, 16—20, and 22—24. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—6, 8—13, 15—20, and 22—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8—13, 15—20, and 22—24. REVERSED 5