Ex Parte Murarka et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201713532424 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/532,424 06/25/2012 Neel Ishwar Murarka 079894.0607 8711 91230 7590 04/04/2017 Raker Rntts; T T P /Faeehnnk Tne EXAMINER 2001 ROSS AVENUE TORRES, MARCOS L SUITE 700 Dallas, TX 75201 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2017 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): ptomaill @bakerbotts.com ptomai!2 @ bakerbotts .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NEEL ISHWAR MURARKA and JACOB ANDREW BRILL Appeal 2017-001566 Application 13/532,424 Technology Center 2600 Before: JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and HUNG H. BUI Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 seek our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of Claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—21. App. Br. 5. Claims 7 and 14 are 1 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed June 2, 2016 (“App. Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed November 7, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 9, 2016 (“Ans”); the Final Office Action mailed February 5, 2016 (“Final Act.”); and the original Specification filed June 25, 2012 (“Spec.”). 2 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Facebook, Inc. App. Br. 3. 3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appeal 2017-001566 Application 13/532,424 canceled. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to methods, one or more computer readable media, and an apparatus to detect a particular bit sequence in a short- message service (SMS) message received at a mobile device registered to a first user and to transmit information of the first user to a verification authority if the bit sequence is detected automatically and without a user input. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized and some formatting added: 1. A method comprising: accessing, by an application on a first mobile device of a first user, one or more short-message service (SMS) messages received at the first mobile device from a server of a verification authority of a social-networking system; automatically and without manual user input, processing, by the application, data in the SMS messages to detect a particular bit sequence, wherein the particular bit sequence represents a request for authentication information of the first user, and wherein the authentication information was previously provided by the first user to the social-networking system; and automatically and without manual user input, transmitting the authentication information to the verification authority from the first mobile device in response to the detection of the particular bit sequence. References 2 Appeal 2017-001566 Application 13/532,424 The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Strandell US 2009/0279682 A1 Nov. 12,2009 Sherwin US 2012/0246031 A1 Sep. 27,2012 Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.4 Final Act. 3^4. 2. Claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sherwin and Strandell. Final Act. 4—10. ANAFYSIS Appellants argue Claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—21 as a group. App. Br. 9. Appellants argue the combination of Sherwin and Strandell does not teach “accessing, by an application on a first mobile device of a first user, one or more short-message service (SMS) messages received at the first mobile device from a server of a verification authority of a social networking system,” as recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2—3. Specifically, Appellants contend Sherwin teaches receiving authentication credentials from a consumer and passing them to a payment entity. App. Br. 10 (citing Sherwin || 7, 20, 26, 27). According to Appellants, the cited portions of Sherwin do not teach a verification authority for social networking system. The Examiner responds that Strandell teaches networks used for social interaction. Ans. 3 (citing Strandell 12). Appellants reply that Strandell teaches networks, not a social-networking system. 4 The Examiner has withdrawn this ground of rejection. Advisory Action, mailed April 14, 2016, 2. 3 Appeal 2017-001566 Application 13/532,424 Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Appellants’ Specification describes a social-networking system as an entity facilitating interaction among users including viewing profiles of other users, contributing media items, joining groups, announcing events, and indicating preference for items. Spec. 19—20. However, we note none of these features of a social-networking system is recited in the claims, including any interaction with other elements from other types of network entities, such as a retailer, a financial institution, or a utility. We agree with Appellants that Stranded does not state social networks per se. Reply Br. 3 (citing Stranded 12). Nevertheless, Stranded teaches network service providers that provide services fostering effective communication among users including email, instant messaging worldwide. See Stranded 12. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the recited social-network system is a network entity for the intended use of a social network. Ans. 3. The fact that the network entity is recited as a social-networking system does not distinguish the result of the claim. Thus, we accord no patentable weight to the recited social-networking entity beyond that of a network entity. Appellants next contend the combination of Sherwin and Stranded does not teach “processing, by the application, data in the SMS messages to detect a particular bit sequence, wherein the particular bit sequence represents a request for authentication information of the first user, and wherein the authentication information was previously provided by the first user to the social-networking system,” as recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 10— 11; Reply Br. 3^4. Specifically, Appellants assert the Examiner does not show in the references “wherein the authentication information was previously provided by the first user to the social-networking system.” App. Br. 11, 12. According to Appellants, Sherwin teaches requesting the 4 Appeal 2017-001566 Application 13/532,424 consumer to send a text message including a password/PIN. App. Br. 11 (citing Sherwin 17); Reply Br. 4. Appellants next argue Sherwin does not teach processing of SMS messages on the mobile device related to bit sequences. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. The Examiner relies on the combination of Sherwin and Stranded to teach the recited processing. Ans. 3^4; Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner finds Stranded teaches that the user provides authentication information. Final Act. 6 (citing Stranded H 2, 31—39). Appellants note this teaching for a user to create an account with the service provider. App. Br. 11 (citing Stranded 131). We agree with the Examiner because Stranded teaches the user sending a SMS message to a network service including the user’s phone number and an ID. Final Act. 6; (see Stranded 135). The Examiner further finds Sherwin teaches processing data in the SMS message by an application on the mobile device to detect a particular bit sequence. Final Act. 5 (citing Sherwin H 20-21, 23—30). We agree with the Examiner because Sherwin teaches that a text message is communicated to the user in which it is parsed by the user’s systems to identify particular data elements. Final Act. 5; see Sherwin H 23—24. We additionally agree with the Examiner that identifying particular data elements in Sherwin teaches detecting a particular bit sequence because data elements are digital data in the form of a binary sequence. Ans. 2. Appellants assert the Examiner does not show in the references “automatically and without manual user input,” for the recited processing step of Claim 1. App. Br. 10—12; Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants dispute that Stranded teaches automatically and without manual user input. App. Br. 11. As discussed above, Appellants note Stranded teaches requiring users to register and create user/screen names. App. Br. 11 (citing 131). Appellants 5 Appeal 2017-001566 Application 13/532,424 further dispute the Examiner’s rationale to combine the automatic processes of Strandell with the manual steps taught in Sherwin. App. Br. 11—12 (citing In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91 (CCPA 1958)); Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants distinguish Venner as applying a timing device to a molding process. App. Br. 12 (citing In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91 (CCPA 1958)); Reply Br. 4—5. The Examiner finds Strandell teaches automatic connection between a user device and a network service. Ans. 4 (citing Strandell H 31, 35). Strandell states: A communication such as an SMS message contains the phone number 114a as part of the connection setup, and thus is an automatic way to determine the phone number and pair the phone number with data (e.g., ID 114b) sent by way of the message 112. That pairing 114 is used to make a mobile application interact with the service without requiring any input, registration or configuration from the user 108. From the user's point of view, the mobile device 102 and the service 110 configure and work together seamlessly and transparently. All the settings needed are fetched automatically from the device 102 and the service 110. Strandell 135. We agree with the Examiner that Strandell teaches automatic connectivity between a user’s mobile device and a network service. We agree with Appellants that Venner concerns applying a timing device to a molding process. App. Br. 12 (citing In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91 (CCPA 1958)). Venner holds that it would be ordinary to one skilled in the art to apply an automatic timing device to a molding process performed with manual estimation of time. Venner, 262 F.2d at 95 (“Therefore, it would be obvious to any person skilled in the art to equip the mold structure of Flamming et al. [(using a person to estimate the time)] with the timing devices of Waldie or Stem.”). We agree with the Examiner that the mle in Venner can be applied to the combination of Sherwin and Strandell. The 6 Appeal 2017-001566 Application 13/532,424 processing of data in the SMS message by an application on the mobile device to detect that a particular bit sequence of Sherwin can be automated like the automatic connectivity between a user’s mobile device and a network service taught in Stranded because it would achieve the same result. Ans. 4 (citing Stranded H 31, 35); Final Act. 5 (citing Sherwin H 20-21, 23-30). Appellants contend the combination of Sherwin and Stranded does not teach “automatically and without manual user input, transmitting the authentication information to the verification authority from the first mobile device in response to the detection of the particular bit sequence,” as recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 13. Appellants disputes the Examiner’s reliance on Sherwin and Stranded to teach this limitation. App. Br. 13 (citing Sherwin 1126—30, Stranded 131). We do not find Appellants’ contention to be persuasive because the Examiner redes on Sherwin to teach transmitting authentication information based on detection of particular information requesting authentication information. Ans. 5 (citing Sherwin H 26—30). The Examiner then combines this teaching with the automatic authentication for connecting a user device to a network service in Stranded. Ans. 5 (citing Stranded H 31, 35). “[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). In view of the foregoing, we are not persuade that the Examiner erred in rejecting Claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—21. 7 Appeal 2017-001566 Application 13/532,424 DECISION The rejection of Claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—21 is 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation