Ex Parte Vasa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 16, 2014

11768971 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2014)

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. 11/768,971 06/27/2007 Yojak Harshad Vasa 2002-627 / PU07 0087US2 3964 54472 7590 06/16/2014 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON 1400 CRESCENT GREEN SUITE 300 CARY, NC 27518 EXAMINER TIV, BACKHEAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/16/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YOJAK HARSHAD VASA, WILLIAM O. CAMP, JR. CHARLES LIU, and ANTHONY J. SAMMARCO ____________________ Appeal 2012-003524 Application 11/768,971 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1–10, 13–19, and 21–35. App. Br. 2. Claims 11, 12, and 20 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2012-003524 Application 11/768,971 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 10, 18, and 24 are independent. Claim 1 is representative. 1. In a communication system including a first end device, a second end device, and a data object server, a method of distributing a control program for the second end device to the first end device, the method comprising: initiating a communication session between the first and second end devices; and receiving a selected communication program at said first end device from a data object server responsive to initiation of the communication session, said communication program selected based on a device class of one or both of the first and second end devices, and configured to allow the first end device to communicate with the second end device. REJECTIONS Claims 1–7, 10, 13–16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moyer (US 2002/0103898 A1; pub. Aug. 1, 2002), Yook (US 2010/0070616 A1; pub. Mar. 18, 2010), and Cochran (US 2002/0161867 A1; pub. Oct. 31, 2002). Claims 8, 9, 17, 23, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Moyer, Yook, Cochran, and further in view of Mahajan (US 2007/0004517 A1; pub. Jan. 4, 2007). ANALYSIS Claims 1–7, 10, 13–16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24–34 unpatentable over Moyer, Yook, and Cochran Claim 1 The Examiner found that Moyer discloses a communications system as recited in claim 1 that initiates a communication session by initiating an Appeal 2012-003524 Application 11/768,971 3 SIP communication and receives a message at a first end device from a data object server responsive to initiation of the communication session but does not disclose receiving a communication program at the first end device from a data object server responsive to initiation of the communication session. Ans. 4–5, 20–21. The Examiner also found that Moyer teaches a method of distributing a control program (DO message) from the second end device to the first end device and the DO message carries a command for the target appliance such as “Turn the Light On.” Id. at 19, 22, 24. The Examiner found that Yook discloses receiving a communication program (application file) at a first end device from a data object server responsive to initiation of a communication session, the communication program is for communicating with the second end device. Id. at 5–6, 22, 25–26. The Examiner relied on Cochran to disclose communication based on device class of first and/or second devices. Id. at 6. Appellants argue that claim 1 recites that the communication program is “configured to allow the first end device to communicate with the second end device” and therefore “absent the program, the end devices will not be able to communicate with each other.” Reply Br. 2–3. Appellants argue that in Moyer both devices already are communicating over an established link in order to receive a DO message, and Yook teaches that the AS and CD are necessarily communicating over a fully functional communications link in order to receive an application file. Id. at 3. These arguments are not persuasive as they are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not require the selected communication program to provide the sole means of communication between the first and second devices. Appeal 2012-003524 Application 11/768,971 4 Appellants assert that Moyer does not disclose receiving messages at a first end device responsive to initiation of a communication session. App. Br. 8. Appellants also argue that Moyer instead allows a user to control an appliance in the user’s home remotely by placing a modified URL in a SIP message’s “To:” and “From:” fields to direct a DO message to a device in a user’s home network where the DO message carries a command that causes a target device to perform some function. Id. at 8–9. These arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings that Moyer teaches initiating a SIP communication session between first and second devices and the first end device receives a message from a data object server responsive to initiation of the communication session. Ans. 5, 19–21. Claim 1 does not preclude a user from initiating a communication session. Moyer teaches that a DO message is received at a first end device responsive to initiation of a communication session by a user. Moyer, ¶¶ 51–53, 69–70. Appellants disclose that a communications session can be initiated using a standard session control protocol, such as Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Spec. 7, ¶ 24. The Examiner also relied on Yook to disclose receipt of a program in response to initiation of a communication session. See id. at 20–21. Appellants argue that a DO message in Moyer is not a communication program but rather is a SIP message that carries a command from one device to another, and this DO message is sent using a communication program that already is incorporated into and executed on the end devices. App. Br. 9. This argument is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s findings that Moyer teaches receiving a DO message at the first end device from a data object server in response to initiation of the communication session and Appeal 2012-003524 Application 11/768,971 5 Yook teaches receiving a communication program at a first end device. Ans. 21. Appellants disclose that: A communication program is a program that is used to facilitate communications between end devices 100, 200. For example a communications program may be used to encode/decode data, encrypt/decrypt data, or compress/decompress data. A control program is a special case of a communication program that is used to send control commands over a communication network. Spec. 4, ¶ 18 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellants disclose that a control program is a special type of communication program used to send control commands over a communication network. Moyer also discloses that DO messages contain control and query commands for directing and receiving status information from networked appliances and the commands trigger a response that can be carried by standard SIP response mechanisms.1 Moyer, ¶ 51; see also App. Br. 9. (arguing that a DO message carries a command from one device to another). The received DO messages allow first and second devices to communicate. Appellants also argue that Yook discloses an application server (AS) that downloads a control device-centric application file from the AS and the CD-centric application file contains commands that are needed by the AS to control the CD, and therefore the AS and CD necessarily have whatever communication programs and protocols are needed to communicate with each other. App. Br. 10. Appellants further argue that the ability of the AS to control the CD is not equivalent to the ability of the AS to communicate with the CD. Id. at 11. These arguments are not persuasive as claim 1 does 1 Moyer discloses the use of a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) as a communication protocol that can accommodate a number of different communications modes. Moyer, ¶ 13. Appeal 2012-003524 Application 11/768,971 6 not require the selected communication program to be the sole means of communication between the first and second devices, as discussed supra. Yook discloses that an application management module 414 downloads an application file 431 for the controlled device 420 from a file server 430 and thereafter can control a controlled device CD 420 in response to the installed application. Yook, ¶¶ 58 –59. This arrangement also allows the sending of control commands over a communications network, and therefore discloses a communications program within a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Appellants’ Specification. We sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 10, 18, and 24 The Examiner rejected independent claims 10, 18, and 24 based on the same findings as claim 1. Cf. Ans. 5–6 with Ans. 7–8, 9–10, and 11–12; see also Ans. 18–38. Appellants argue that claims 10, 18, and 24 are non- obvious for the reasons similar to those argued for claim 1. App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 4–5. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth supra for claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claims 10, 18, and 24. Claims 2, 19, and 26 Dependent claims 2, 19, and 26 recite the communication program is selected based on the device class of the second device. The Examiner found that Cochran teaches providing a communication program by a data object server corresponding to a device class of the second end device by generating a remote device configuration based on device classes and determined that it would have been obvious to apply this teaching to Moyer to configure network devices that are coupled to the network. Ans. 14–15. Appellants’ argument that Cochran’s configuration scheme has nothing to do Appeal 2012-003524 Application 11/768,971 7 with a communication program (App. Br. 17-18) is an individual attack on the references where the Examiner has relied on their combined teachings to establish that it would have been obvious to provide communications programs based on the class of the second device. Cochran discloses that communications are initiated with a remote device after such configuration. Cochran, para. [0039]. We sustain the rejection of claims 2, 19, and 26. Claims 3 and 4 Appellants argue that claims 3 and 4 recite a communication program is selected by the data object server to correspond to the device class of the first end device and Cochran uses device class to configure a device. App. Br. 18. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra for claims 2, 19, and 26. We sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4. Claims 5, 15, 21, and 33 The Examiner relied on Moyer to teach a communication program that is one of an encoding/decoding program, cryptographic program, compression/decompression program, and digital rights management program. Ans. 13–14 (citing Moyer, ¶¶ 47, 49, 101, 442, 445, 446, 453– 0457). Appellants’ arguments that none of these paragraphs teaches the claimed features are not persuasive of error (see App. Br. 19) as these portions of Moyer disclose the use of encoding and encryption for privacy. We sustain the rejection of claims 5, 15, 21, and 33. Claim 13 Claim 13 depends from claim 10 and recites that the communication program is received at the second end device from the data object server and forwarded to the first end device. Appellants argue that the Examiner relied on Cochran to disclose this feature but Cochran does not teach forwarding a Appeal 2012-003524 Application 11/768,971 8 communication program that it never receives from a server to the other end device. App. Br. 19–20. The Examiner found that Cochran receives an information request at the first end device from the data object server and sends a response from the first end device to the data object server, but did not make any findings regarding receipt of the communication program at the second end device or forwarding the program to the first end device. See Ans. 16–17. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 13. Claims 6, 7, 14, 16, 22, 27–32, and 34 Appellants do not present separate argument for claims 6, 7, 14, 16, 22, 27–32, and 34. App. Br. 20. We sustain the rejection of these claims. Claims 8, 9, 17, 23, and 35 unpatentable over Moyer, Yook, Cochran, and Mahajan Appellants argue that the addition of Mahajan to teach features of these dependent claims does not remedy the deficiencies of Moyer, Yook, and Cochran as to independent claims 1, 10, 18, and 24, from which claims 8, 9, 17, 23, and 35 depend. App. Br. 20. Because we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 10, 18, and 24, these arguments are not persuasive. We sustain the rejection of claims 8, 9, 17, 23, and 35. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1–10, 14–19, and 21–35 and REVERSE the rejection of claim 13. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Appeal 2012-003524 Application 11/768,971 9 hh