Ex Parte Murarka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13532424 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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.
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