Ex Parte Amran

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

13460787 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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.
13/460,787 04/30/2012 Asaf AMRAN 82775445 9746
22879
HP Tnr
7590 01/18/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
RODRIGUEZ, DANIEL
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASAF AMRAN
Appeal 2015-007265
Application 13/460,787
Technology Center 2100
Before: JEAN R. HOMERE, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
6 and 8—21. Claim 7 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-007265
Application 13/460,787
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to obtaining status data of a device having a
plurality of component parts. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of obtaining status data of a device having a
plurality of physical component parts comprising:
communicating with the device to obtain, from the device,
initial information regarding at least some of the component parts
of the device prior to displaying a visual representation of the
device;
displaying a visual representation of the device and the at
least some of the component parts of the device, wherein the
displaying comprising rendering the at least some of the
component parts based on a measurement of a variable physical
attribute of the at least some of the component parts provided in
the initial information; and
in response to a user action selecting a portion of the visual
representation by touching a touchscreen on which the visual
representation of the device is displayed:
displaying a visual representation of the portion and
subcomponents of the portion located at a touched point of
the touchscreen;
communicating with the device to obtain
information related to the selected portion and the
subcomponents; and
displaying the information related to the selected
portion.
REJECTIONS
Appellant appeals the rejections as follows:
Claim 1—6, 8—11, 14, and 15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Rotheroe (US 2005/0075839) and Yamasaki (US 2011/0282537). Final Act.
(mailed October 3, 2014) 2—19.
2
Appeal 2015-007265
Application 13/460,787
Claims 12 and 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rotheroe,
Yamasaki, and Marshall (US 2011/0119332). Final Act.19-21.
Claim 13 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rotheroe,
Yamasaki, and Mathewson (US 2007/0097419). Final Act. 21.
Claim 16 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rotheroe,
Yamasaki, Morse (US 6888541), and Giambalvo (US 2011/0316884). Final
Act. 22-23.
Claim 17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rotheroe,
Yamasaki, Marshall, and Morse. Final Act. 23—24.
Claim 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rotheroe,
Yamasaki, and Morse. Final Act. 24—25.
Claim 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rotheroe,
Yamasaki, and Agrawala (US 2005/0248560). Final Act. 25—26.
Claim 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rotheroe,
Yamasaki, Siegel (US 2006/0167728), Colarelli (U.S. Patent No. 6178358),
and Skourup (US 2006/0241793). Final Act. 26—28.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant argues error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 because
“Rotheroe does not provide any teaching or hint that a user selection of a
portion of a visual representation of a device would result in communicating
with the device to obtain information relating to the selected portion.” App.
Br. 8. Appellant also asserts that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have found no reason to combine Rotheroe and Yamasaki to achieve the
subject matter of claim 1.” Id. at 9.
3
Appeal 2015-007265
Application 13/460,787
Rotheroe discloses monitoring software that renders a view of
monitored equipment using information from a database. Rotheroe 137.
The database is continually updated with information about the monitored
equipment. Id. Upon selection of a new view by a user, the new view is
constructed based on the selection using data from the database. Id.
Appellant’s argument that “Rotheroe does not provide any teaching or
hint that a user selection of a portion of a visual representation of a device
would result in communicating with the device to obtain information
relating to the selected portion” (App. Br. 8) is premised on the database in
Rotheroe, from which the updated data is obtained (Fig. 8), not being “the
device” of claim 1. While we agree that communication with the database to
obtain the updated information in Rotheroe is not disclosed as being directly
responsive to the user’s selection, it is disclosed as being at least indirectly
responsive. See Fig. 8,137. Moreover, we find nothing in Rotheroe that
would preclude the monitored equipment from hosting the database that is
consulted in response to the user’s selection, in which case the obtained
information would be “information related to the selected portion and the
subcomponents” as claimed.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of the combined
teachings of Rotheroe and Yamasaki. Final Act. 2—6.
Nor are we persuaded of error based on Appellant’s argument that “a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found no reason to combine
Rotheroe and Yamasaki to achieve the subject matter of claim 1” (App. Br.
9) because Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that
“[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Rotheroe
4
Appeal 2015-007265
Application 13/460,787
and Yamasaki to provide the benefit of a simpler means of entering user
input, such as via a touchscreen” (Ans. 5 (citing Yamasaki 14)).
Claim 13
Appellant argues the rejection of claim 13 on the basis that
nowhere in Mathewson is there any teaching or hint of a user
action of selecting a portion of a visual representation of a
printing press, where the user selection of the portion of the
visual representation of the printing press causes communication
with the printing press to obtain information related to the
selected portion.
App. Br. 12. See also Reply Br. 7—8. We find this unpersuasive of error
because the Examiner does not rely solely on Mathewson for the limitation,
and Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings and
conclusion based on the combination. Final Act. 21; Ans. 6—8.
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 2—6, 8—11, 14, and 15 on the
same basis as claim 1 and argues the rejections of claims 12 and 16—21
based on the claims from which they depend. App. Br. 10—14. Accordingly,
we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for
the reasons discussed above.
5
Appeal 2015-007265
Application 13/460,787
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6 and 8—21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6