2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 386
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`January 23, 2017, Decided
`
`Appeal 2016-000452Application 12/822,036Technology Center 2100
`
`USPTO Bd of Patent Appeals & Interferences; Patent Trial & Appeal Bd Decs.
`
`Reporter
`2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 386 *
`
`Ex parte CHRISTOPHER A. EVANS, SCOTT JENSEN, ADVAY V. MENGLE,
`JEFFREY T. PEARCE, JOHN ELSBREE, LOUIS M. KAHN, CHAD C. NEFF,
`NERMIN OSMANOVIC, NOSHERWAN MINWALLA, RAJADURAI ISAAC
`RAJAKUMAR, DALE A. SATHER, MANUEL A. SCHRODER, OVIDIU G.
`TEMEREANCA
`
`Notice:
`
` [*1]
`
`ROUTINE OPINION. Pursuant to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Standard Operating Procedure 2, the
`opinion below has been designated a routine opinion.
`
`Core Terms
`
`update, rejected claim, install, module, package
`
`Panel: Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Opinion By: ALEX S. YAP
`
`Opinion
`
`YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2015
`Page 1 of 5
`
`

`

`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 386, *1
`
`Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 15-17, and
`20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
`
`We reverse.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Introduction
`
`Appellants' invention relates to an application that includes multiple experience modules installed on a
`device. (June 23, 2010, Specification ("Spec.") P 3.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
`1. A method in a device, the method comprising:
`
`installing, on the device, an application that includes [*2] multiple experience modules that are
`each configured to implement a set of features when the application is running, each of the
`multiple experience modules including a first component that includes code specific to a
`particular type of the device, and a second component that includes code that is common across
`multiple types of devices, the code specific to the particular type of the device including
`presentation logic and resources that tailor presentation of an associated experience of the
`experience module to the particular type of the device based on physical features of the particular
`type of the device, and the code that is common across multiple types of devices including
`business logic that is common across the particular type of the device as well as other types of
`devices; and
`
`sending a request to a deployment service to check for updates to the application, the request
`including an identifier of the particular type of the device and a master version number of the
`application installed on the device, the master version number indicating a current experience
`version number for each of the one or more experience modules of the application installed on
`the device; receiving, [*3] from the deployment service, one or more update packages for the
`one or more of the multiple experience modules, the one or more update packages
`corresponding to the particular type of the device; installing, on the device, the one or more
`update packages; and
`updating the master version number of the application installed on the device to a most recent
`master version number of the application, the most recent master version number corresponding
`to a most recent update package of the one or more update packages installed on the device.
`
`Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
`
`The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal:
`Chen et al.
`
`("Chen")
`
`US 8,131,875 B1
`
`Mar. 6, 2012
`
`Williams et al.
`
`1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation. (App. Br. 3.)
`
` Page 2 of 5
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2015
`Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 386, *3
`
`("Williams")
`
`US 2011/0047540 A1
`
`Feb. 24, 2011
`
`Haenel et al.
`
`("Haenel")
`
`US 2009/0249296 A1
`
`Oct. 1, 2009
`
`Ushiyama
`
`US 2009/0037445 A1
`
`Feb. 5, 2009
`
`Vu et al.
`
`("Vu")
`
`Leitner
`
`Bilange
`
`Hayasi et al.
`
`("Hayashi")
`
`Higgins et al.
`
`("Higgins")
`
`Cheng et al.
`
`("Cheng")
`
`US 2008/0133569 A1
`
`June 5, 2008
`
`US 2008/0016176 A1
`
`Jan. 17, 2008
`
`US 2007/0232223 A1
`
`Oct. 4, 2007
`
`US 2007/0077921 A1
`
`Apr. 5, 2007
`
`US 2007/0067373 A1
`
`Mar. 22, 2007
`
`US 2005/0273779 A1
`
`Dec. 8, 2005
`
`Morris
`
`US 2005/0223376 A1
`
`Oct. 6, 2005
`
`Butt et al.
`
`("Butt")
`
`US 6,754,829 B1
`
`June 22, 2004
`
`MacInnis
`
`US 6,487,723 B1
`
`Nov. 26, 2002
`
` [*4]
`
`Claims 1, 3, 10-12, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vu, in
`view of Bilange and Haenel, further in view of Chen and/or Hayashi, Ushiyama, and MacInnis, and/or
`Cheng, and further in view of Higgins. (See Final Office Action (mailed Sept. 18, 2014) ("Final Act. ") 4-
`27.)
`
`Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vu, in view of Bilange and
`Haenel, further in view of Chen and/or Hayashi, Ushiyama, and MacInnis, and/or Cheng, and Higgins and
`further in view of Williams. (See Final Act. 27-29.)
`
`Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vu, in view of Bilange
`and Haenel, further in view of Chen and/or Hayashi, Ushiyama, and MacInnis, and/or Cheng and Higgins,
`and further in view of Leitner and/or Morris. (See Final Act. 29-33.)
`
` Page 3 of 5
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2015
`Page 3 of 5
`
`

`

`2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 386, *4
`
`Claims 9 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vu, in view of
`Bilange and Haenel, further in view of Chen and/or Hayashi, Ushiyama, and MacInnis, and/or Cheng, and
`further in view of Higgins, and further in [*5] view of Williams and Butt. (See Final Act. 33-38.)
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred.
`We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal.
`
`With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds the claim obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of
`nine references. (Final Act. 4-20.) Appellants, however, contend that the Examiner's rejections of claim 1
`is in error because it "is legally insufficient for asserting an obvious combination of nine different
`references without providing a clear articulation that: supports an alleged benefit of combining the nine
`different references." (App. Br. 24.) In other words, Appellants are contending that the Examiner fails to
`provide any rationale for combining these nine references. The Examiner disagrees and explains that the
`Office Action has provided different rationales (for issues A, B, C, or D) for each of the limitations at
`issue. (Ans. 44; Final Act. 6-20.) For example, for the updating limitation (issue D), the Examiner
`provides well-reasoned rationales for combining Vu with Ushiyama, Bilange, Cheng, and/or MacInnis.
`(Final Act. 19-20.) [*6]
`
`The number of references alone does not weigh against obviousness. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982,
`986 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("The criterion, however, is not the number of references, but what they would have
`meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. " (Citation omitted.)). However, "[e]ven if
`the references disclosed all of the limitations of the asserted claims [the Examiner must still] proffer
`evidence indicating why a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine the references to arrive
`at the claimed invention. " Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`2012). Here, while the Examiner articulates rationales to combine a subset of the references for each of
`the four issues, the Examiner, however, does not articulate any reasoning for why a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would combine all the references.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1 and do not
`sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1. 2 Independent claims 10 and 20 contain similar
`limitations at issue and the Examiner [*7] rejected these claims under the same rationale. (Final Act. 5.)
`Thus, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10 and 20, and of claims 3-7, 9, 11, 12,
`and 15-17, which depend from either claims 1 or 10.
`
`DECISION
`
`We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 15-17, and 20.
`
`REVERSED
`
`USPTO Bd of Patent Appeals & Interferences; Patent
`
`Trial & Appeal Bd Decs.
`
`2 Because we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons discussed herein, we need not address Appellants' further arguments. See
`Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on
`"a single dispositive issue").
`
` Page 4 of 5
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2015
`Page 4 of 5
`
`

`

`2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 386, *7
`
`End of Document
`
` Page 5 of 5
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2015
`Page 5 of 5
`
`