Ex Parte Quirk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 14, 2019

14726202 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/726,202 05/29/2015 87048 7590 02/19/2019 Jordan IP Law (IBM - SVL) 12501 PROSPERITY DRIVE SUITE401 SIL VER SPRING, MD 20904 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Aaron J. Quirk 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. RSW920140071 US2 4316 EXAMINER RAHMAN, SM AZIZUR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2458 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/19/2019 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): admin@jordaniplaw.com info@jordaniplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AARON J. QUIRK, LIN SUN, and LAURA WYNTER Appeal2017-011651 Application 14/726,202 Technology Center 2400 Before: JENNIFER S. BISK, JOHN A. EV ANS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. BISK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as the International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-011651 Application 14/726,202 BACKGROUND2 The claims are directed to peer negotiation of area service preferences. Spec. ,r 2. For example, when groups of people gather in common areas, such as stores and restaurants, environmental preferences of those gathered, such as temperature, can be determined using individual preferences stored on mobile devices. Id. ,r 3. From these individual preferences, the overall infrastructure can use a negotiated common preference to control the environment. Id. An object of the invention is to enable such peer negotiated settings while also preserving the anonymity and privacy of the individuals involved. Id. Anonymity and privacy can be maintained, for example, by avoiding sharing specific preferences directly with an infrastructure. Id. ,r 28. This can be implemented by equipping each mobile device with a preference negotiator that can exchange and agree upon a common preference with the other device's preference negotiators and providing only that common preference to the overall infrastructure component. Id. ,r,r 20-21. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of operating a local peer device, comprising: joining an overlay network of a plurality of peer devices; receiving service information broadcasted to an area; identifying, based on the broadcasted service information, a local preference for an area service available to the plurality of peer devices; and 2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed May 29, 2015 ("Spec."), the Final Rejection mailed October 27, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed March 23, 2017 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed July 20, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed September 20, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2017-011651 Application 14/726,202 using the local preference to negotiate a common preference for the area service with the plurality of peer devices. The REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Chang (US 2010/0082176 Al, published Apr. 1, 2010). ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below. "service information broadcasted to an area " Appellants argue that Chang does not disclose "service information broadcasted to an area." App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 5-7. Specifically, Appellants argue that, "Chang simply teaches that when the temperature exceeds a specific level, a home automation control device (HACD) sends a message to peer-to-peer HACD devices to ascertain which HACD devices are online." App. Br. 11. According to Appellants, (1) Chang's temperature does not correspond to the claimed "service information," (2) Chang's temperature is not "broadcast ... as a service to the HACD devices," and (3) even if broadcast, "the broadcasted message does not include service information that is broadcasted to an area." Id. The Examiner explains that Chang discloses sending a message from one HACD to all other HACD devices on the same network in order to automatically discover the presence of HACD devices. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4. According to the Examiner, (1) Chang's message indicating the presence of an HACD corresponds to service information (Final Act. 3; 3 Appeal2017-011651 Application 14/726,202 Ans. 4), (2) the message is broadcast (Ans. 4), and (3) Chang's network environment corresponds to the claimed "area" (id.). We agree with the Examiner that Chang discloses "service information broadcasted to an area." The Specification uses the term "service information" only once: "The local preference may be obtained based on service information broadcasted (e.g., via wireless transmission) to a common area such as, for example, a crosswalk, intersection, community pool and/or store." Spec. ,r 24. From this context, we agree with the Examiner that "service information" encompasses the identity of available HACD devices. Similarly, the term "area" is used very broadly in the Specification to refer to common areas like crosswalks, intersections, community pools, stores, and restaurants. Id. ,r,r 3, 24. We agree with the Examiner that the claimed "area" encompasses the network environment of a house or commercial building as described by Chang. See Chang ,r 12. Finally, we agree with the Examiner that because Chang discloses an HACD device sending an availability message to all the HACD devices present, it "broadcasts service information to an area." Therefore, Appellants have not overcome the Examiner's showing that the Chang discloses "service information broadcasted to an area." "identifying, based on the broadcasted service information, a local preference for an area service available to the plurality of peer devices" Appellants argue that, "Chang does not teach or suggest that local preferences of the individual HA CDs are considered when the energy savings goal is achieved." App. Br. 12. In response, the Examiner explains that Chang "teaches each of the multiple HA CDs ... in the same network have conflicting performance goals (local preference for each device) 4 Appeal2017-011651 Application 14/726,202 among the multiple HACDs," and, therefore, "a local preference is available for the plurality of peer devices for an area." Ans. 3 (citing Chang ,r 36). Appellants disagree, arguing that "[ t ]he performance goals in Chang are specific to the peer devices discussed therein and differ from the claimed local preference for an area service available to peer devices." Reply Br. 8. We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited "local preference for an area service available to the plurality of peer devices" encompasses Chang's disclosure of pre- programmed performance goals of individual HACDs. See Chang ,r 36 (stating that individual HACDs may be "pre-programmed to conserve energy consumption" by different percentages). The Specification uses the term "area service" very broadly to include "for example, a crosswalk timer, public safety staffing system, temperature control system, ambient lighting control system, jukebox and so forth." Spec. ,r 19; see also id. ,r 23 (including "lifeguards," "paramedics," "music genre settings," and "listening volume settings" as "area services"). Appellants do not point to any language in the Specification, nor do we see any, that restricts the claimed "area service" from including an energy savings goal. Therefore, Appellants have not overcome the Examiner's showing that the Chang discloses "identifying, based on the broadcasted service information, a local preference for an area service available to the plurality of peer devices." Conclusion For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Chang. 5 Appeal2017-011651 Application 14/726,202 The Examiner also rejects claims 2-8 as anticipated by Chang. Final Act. 4---6. For each of these claims, Appellants rely on the same arguments made with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 9-12. These arguments, however, are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Consequently, we find Appellants' arguments do not show error in the Examiner's factual findings and the finding of anticipation of claims 2-8. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 as anticipated by Chang. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED 6