Ex Parte Barker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

14088139 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/088,139 11/22/2013
89091 7590 09/04/2018
FOGARTYLLP
P.O. Box 703695
Dallas, TX 75370-3695
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Clifton J. Barker
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.
102306.01 5118
EXAMINER
FAN,JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
docketing@fogartyip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLIFTON J. BARKER, MICHAEL S. GATSON,
TODD SWIERK, JASON A. SHEPHERD, and
YUAN-CHANG LO
Appeal2017-011184
Application 14/088,139 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, IRVINE. BRANCH, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1--4, 7-11, and 13-19, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to manipulating audio and/or speech in a
virtual collaboration session. Spec. Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dell Products, L.P.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-011184
Application 14/088,139
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. An Information Handling System (IHS), comprising:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory including
program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the
processor, cause the IHS to:
capture speech originated by a given one of a
plurality of participants during a virtual collaboration
sess10n;
detect that the given participant has initiated a
private collaboration session with at least another
participant to the exclusion of at least yet another
participant during the virtual collaboration session;
capture the private collaboration sess10n as an
event;
synchronize the speech with the event along a
common timeline;
store the synchronized speech and event;
display the event along the common timeline on a
scrolling marquee;
detect that the given participant has dragged and
dropped content onto the scrolling marquee; and
distribute the content to the at least another
participant of the virtual collaboration session in response
to the detection.
2
Appeal2017-011184
Application 14/088,139
Rejections2
Claims 1--4, 7-11, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Toomey (US 6,119,147, issued Sept. 12, 2000), Ferren
(US 7,092,002 B2, issued Aug. 15, 2006), and Morris
(US 2011/0270824 Al, published Nov. 3, 2011). Final Act. 5-15.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Toomey and Morris. Final Act. 15-
17.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
Claim 1 recites "detect that the given participant has dragged and
dropped content onto the scrolling marquee; and distribute the content to the
at least another participant of the virtual collaboration session in response to
the detection." Claim 10 differs from claim 1 in that it recites "distributing
the content to all other participants of the virtual collaboration session in
response to the detection."
The Examiner finds that Morris discloses dragging and dropping
content and distributing the content to other participants. Final Act. 7-8
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief mailed March
12, 2017 ("App. Br."), as well as the following documents for their
respective details: the Final Action mailed October 21, 2016 ("Final Act.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed June 29, 2017 ("Ans."); and Appellants'
Reply Brief filed August 29, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2017-011184
Application 14/088,139
(citing Morris ,r,r 58, 68); see Ans. 5-7 (additionally citing Morris ,r,r 64, 73-
74).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1 and 10
because, despite Morris teaching "'drag-and-drop placement [ of content out
of the marquee and] into a search region"' and "direct 'drag-and-drop
placement to other group members'," Morris does not teach or suggest
"'distribut[ing] content to [a] participant of [a] virtual collaboration session
in response to [a] detection [that the participant has dragged and dropped
content onto the scrolling marquee],' as recited in claim 1." Reply Br. 3; see
App. Br. 6-13.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error. Morris discloses
distributing content (i.e., "clips") by dragging and dropping it (Morris ,r 58
("clips can easily be distributed, for example via drag-and-drop placement to
other group members")) and dragging and dropping content "to other
locations on the GUI" (Morris ,r 74). This at least suggests dragging and
dropping content to a scrolling marquee at least because Morris' dragging
and dropping "to other locations on the GUI" for distributing to other
participants does not preclude the scrolling marquee portion of the GUI.
Morris ,r,r 58, 74.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 10
and the Examiner's rejections of the remaining claims, which Appellants do
not argue separately.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1--4, 7-11, and 13-19.
4
Appeal2017-011184
Application 14/088,139
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5