Jyri Partanen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

14254929 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2019)

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.
14/254,929 04/17/2014 Jyri Partanen 059244.00078 2250
32294 7590 09/30/2019
Squire PB (NVA/DC Office)
ATTN: IP Department
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
EXAMINER
COYER, RYAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 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):
IP-Squire@SquirePB.com
sonia.whitney@squirepb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JYRI PARTANEN
Appeal 2018-007589
Application 14/254,929
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18 and 21. Final Act. 1. Claims 19

1 We refer to the Specification, filed April 17, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed October 5, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
December 28, 2017 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 18, 2018
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed July 18, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rovio
Entertainment Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007589
Application 14/254,929
2
and 20 are canceled. App. Br., Claims App.. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to parameter modification. Spec.,
Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in
italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising at least one processing core
and at least one memory including computer program code, the
at least one memory and the computer program code being
configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the
apparatus at least to:
cause a first parameter value set comprising at least one
first parameter value to be provided to a first set of devices,
wherein the first set of devices are provided with the same first
parameter value set;
obtain a fitness value associated with the first parameter
value set in the first set of devices;
determine, based at least in part on the fitness value and an
optimization algorithm, at least one second parameter value set
comprising at least one second parameter value, and cause the at
least one second parameter value set to be provided to the first
set or a second set of devices.
REFERENCES3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

3 All citations herein to these references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
Appeal 2018-007589
Application 14/254,929
3

Kropaczek US 2007/0179919 A1 Aug. 2, 2007
Mohr US 9,525,582 B1 Dec. 20, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kropaczek and Mohr. Final Act. 3–6.
Claims 6, 9, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kropaczek and Mohr in view of official notice. Final Act.
6–7.
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–9; Ans. 3–8) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 8–17) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
The Examiner finds Kropaczek discloses all limitations of claim 1
except for the requirement that the first set of devices are provided with the
same first parameter value set (the “same first parameter value” limitation).
Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds the limitation is taught by Mohr’s
disclosure of “provisioning (and reprovisioning) each and every device in a
set of devices with a single set of parameters selected from a ranked list of
multiple sets of parameters.” Id. at 4.
Appeal 2018-007589
Application 14/254,929
4
Appellant argues Mohr discloses retrieved parameters are retained in
local memory of a single piece of customer premises equipment (CPE), not a
set of devices are recited by claim 1. App. Br. 8. Appellant further argues
Mohr discloses providing a customized set of parameters to a particular CPE
device based upon a hierarchical list retrieved by an individual CPE device,
not providing each CPE device with the same parameter value set as
required by claim 1. Id. at 9–10.
Interpreting the limitation broadly, the Examiner finds the limitation
of providing the first set of devices with the same first parameter value set is
satisfied by making the parameter value set available without requiring the
set be distributed or delivered. Ans. 11. “Put differently, every device ‘is
provided with the same parameter value set’ because each device retrieves
the same instructions for obtaining the values in the parameter value set.”
Id. The Examiner also disagrees Mohr’s parameter values are for a single
CPE device. Id., cf. App. Br. 9. Instead, the Examiner finds “Mohr is
directed toward configuring the operating parameters of multiple consumer
premise equipment (CPE) devices, e.g., set top boxes connected to a cable
network.” Ans. 11 (citing Mohr, col. 1, ll. 12–23; col. 2., ll. 13–26.) The
Examiner further disagrees Mohr fails to teach providing the same parameter
value set to multiple CPE devices. The Examiner explains “Mohr’s
hierarchical parameter source lists are intended for distribution to many CPE
devices” and “initial [CPE] provisioning would yield the same results for all
initialized devices.” Ans. 13, 15. The Examiner thusly reasons, as disclosed
by Mohr, “every CPE device that, upon initialization, is provided with the
‘hierarchical list’ of ‘parameter sources’ is thereby provided with the same
set of parameter values.” Id. at 15.
Appeal 2018-007589
Application 14/254,929
5
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, a particular
embodiment appearing in the written description must not be read into the
claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be
read into the claims from the specification.”). Construing claims broadly
during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has
the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim
coverage. Acad. of Sci. Tech Center, 367 F.3d at 1364. See, also In re
Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267–68 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Applicant always
has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad
interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once
issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.” (quoting Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111)).
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner in finding the prior
art teaches plural devices. See Ans. 11–12. Additionally, because each
device retrieves the same instructions for obtaining the values in the
parameter value set, each has access to the same parameter value, i.e., “a
first parameter value set comprising at least one first parameter value.” See
id. at 12. That is, by providing instructions and a hierarchical list of
Appeal 2018-007589
Application 14/254,929
6
parameter sources, the corresponding set of parameters are effectively also
provided.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument the disputed
requirement of providing the same first parameter value list to the first set of
devices requires pushing the parameter values to the devices. See Reply Br.
3 (“The specification clarifies that ‘provided’ denotes parameter[] values
being ‘pushed’.”). Although the Specification discloses “computer 110 may
cause the changed parameter values to be pushed to mobiles” (Spec. ¶ 30),
this statement does not amount to a definition of what is meant by providing
a parameter value set. As explained above, it is improper to read limitations
from the Specification into the claims. We also find unhelpful the disclosed
alternative embodiment wherein “[t]he changed parameter value set may be
provided as a response to such a query” (id.) as it does not define a specific
action taken in response to a query other than describe the action using the
term in question, i.e., the parameter value set may be provided.
Furthermore, even if interpreted to require that the parameter value set be
supplied, there is no requirement that the apparatus of claim 1 provide the
parameter values set directly to the first set of devices without intervening
devices or steps. Still further, even if narrowly interpreted to require direct
transmission of a parameter value set to a set of devices without intervening
devices or steps, one skilled in the art would have understood the
combination of Kropaczek and Mohr teaches or suggests such a
configuration.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments in connection
with the rejection of claim 1 are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Appellant’s arguments in connection with independent claims 10 and 21 are
Appeal 2018-007589
Application 14/254,929
7
repetitious of those found unpersuasive in connection with independent
claim 1. No separate substantive argument is presented in connection with
the rejection of dependent claims 2–5, 7, 8, 11–14, 16, and 17. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons,
the rejection of independent claims 10 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kropaczek and Mohr. Furthermore, we sustain the
rejections of dependent claims 2–5, 7, 8, 11–14, 16, and 17 that are not
argued separately with particularity.
In connection with the rejection of dependent claims 6, 9, 15, and 18,
Appellant additionally argues “the facts asserted were not properly Officially
Noticed and not properly based on common knowledge.” App. Br. 12, 14,
18, 20. The Examiner responds “[o]fficial Notice was first invoked for the
rejections of these claims in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/25/2016.
Appellants did not adequately traverse that use of Official Notice and
thereby acquiesced to its use.” Ans. 16 (citing MPEP § 2144.03).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s challenge to the
Examiner’s Official Notice in these claims is untimely (Ans. 8) because the
Examiner took Official Notice in three separate and previous Actions.
Specifically, the Examiner took Official Notice and provided support for the
Official Notice in the October 25, 2016 Non-Final Action (Oct. 25, 2016
Non-Final Act. 6, 7), May 4, 2017 Final Action (May 4, 2017 Final Act. 6,
7), and July 13, 2017 Non-Final Act (July 13, 2017 Non-Final Act. 6–7).
None of Appellant’s responses to those Actions refuted that Official Notice
(see January 11, 2017 Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 12–13; June 6,
2017 Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116 11–12; and August 28, 2017
Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 14–15) and are now, accordingly,
Appeal 2018-007589
Application 14/254,929
8
untimely. We also agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s traversal, even
if timely filed, is inadequate for failing to state why the noticed facts are not
considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Accordingly,
the Examiner did not err in taking Official Notice in rejecting the claims. As
such, Appellant’s challenge to the Examiner’s Official Notice is
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 6, 9, 15, and 18.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 8, 10–14,
16, 17, 21
35 U.S.C. § 103
Kropaczek, Mohr
1–5, 7, 8, 10–
14, 16, 17, 21

6, 9, 15, 18 35 U.S.C. § 103
Kropaczek, Mohr,
Official Notice
6, 9, 15, 18
Overall Outcome 1–18, 21

AFFIRMED