Ex Parte Bose et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

13098437 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/098,437 04/30/2011
10949 7590 09/22/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Raja Bose
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.
042933/419896 8725
EXAMINER
ZHU,ZHIMEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAJA BOSE, JORG BRAKENSIEK, and KEUN-YOUNG PARK
Appeal2015-004612
Application 13/098,437
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention relates to facilitating the interoperability of a
mobile computing device with a remote environment such as a vehicle head
unit, personal computer, or other environment featuring a large display.
1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004612
Application 13/098,437
Spec. iii! 2--4. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining, with a processor for each of a plurality of
content components of a user interface, a respective hardware
interface via which to transmit the content component;
generating meta-information associated with at least one
of the content components to facilitate recomposition of the
content components following transmission, wherein the meta
information comprises fiducial information; and
causing the plurality of content components and the
meta-information to be transmitted via the respective hardware
interfaces including causing at least two of the content
components to be transmitted via different hardware interfaces.
Br. 14 (emphasis added).
THE REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 9, 10, 12-14, and 17 stand rejected under pre-ii.LA..
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fang et al. (US 2008/0034029; pub.
Feb. 7, 2008) ("Fang") and Hutchinson (US 2011/0238861; pub. Sept. 29,
2011 ). Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fang, Hutchinson, and Altunbasak (WO
2006/101979 A2; pub. Sept. 28, 2006). Final Act. 8-10.
Claims 3, 11, 18, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fang, Hutchinson, and Du (CN 201341199 Y;
pub. Nov. 4, 2009). Final Act. 11-12.
2
Appeal2015-004612
Application 13/098,437
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 1, 9, and 17
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 9, and 17 as a group, with
claim 1 being representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches
determining, as recited in each independent claim, "a respective hardware
interface" via which to transmit the content component, and that such
hardware interfaces are "different;" i.e.; that there is more than one hardware
interface. Br. 9-11. Specifically, Appellants argue that although Fang
teaches different "channels" of communication, those channels are
"communicating via the same hardware interface," id. 10, and that
Hutchinson also fails to teach the disputed limitations, id. 11.
The Examiner finds the disputed limitations not in Fang or
Hutchinson individually, but in the combination of references. Ans. 2-5.
We agree with the Examiner's findings. Fang teaches determining, with a
processor for each of a plurality of content components of a user interface, a
respective communication channel via which to transmit the content
component. Fang Fig. 4, i-f 33 (audiovisual data transmitted over a "media
channel" and "separate UI [user interface] channel"); Final Act. 3 (citing
3
Appeal2015-004612
Application 13/098,437
same). Although Fang does not explicitly disclose using respective (and
different) hardware interfaces, Hutchinson teaches this element, as the
Examiner finds, Ans. 6. Namely, Hutchinson teaches that different
communication channels use different hardware interfaces. Hutchinson
Fig. 3, i-f 49 (teaching various data channels, each corresponding to a
different "communications interface" such as USB and WLAN); Final Act. 4
(citing same); Ans. 6. Accordingly, we find, as did the Examiner, the
combination of Fang and Hutchinson teaches the disputed limitations, and
Appellants' arguments attacking the references individually do not persuade
us of error. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Appellants also argue one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to
combine the references. Br. 11-12. Appellants assert the Examiner's
rationale is merely a "conclusory statement" and there was "no known
problem that would lead to the result of combining Fang with Hutchinson."
Id. 12. The record before us, however, does not support Appellants'
contentions.
As discussed above, Fang teaches different communications channels
to transmit different parts of a data stream (i.e., a plurality of content
components) to a media player. Fang i-f 33; Final Act. 4. Specifically, Fang
teaches transmitting the user interface (UI) on a separate channel from the
audio/video signal, with each channel received by the media player. Id.
Although Fang does not state whether the channels in Fang are utilizing
different hardware interfaces or the same interface, the Examiner finds, Final
Act. 4, Ans. 9-10, and we agree, one of ordinary skill would understand
transmitting an audio/video signal typically "requires higher bandwidth than
4
Appeal2015-004612
Application 13/098,437
transmitting a user-interface," i.e., the content components in Fang have
different attributes. Final Act. 4. Hutchinson, "in the same field of
endeavor" as Fang (i.e., data communication between devices using multiple
channels), also teaches separating data into content components based on the
attributes of these components. Id. (citing Hutchinson Abstract, i-f 49).
Accordingly, we discern no error in the Examiner's finding that one of
ordinary skill, when determining whether to use the same or different
hardware interfaces for the multiple channels taught in Fang, would rely on
the teachings of Hutchinson. Id. (citing Hutchinson Fig. 3, i-f 49); see also
Hutchinson i-f 50 ("As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, each of
the channels ... may be easily reconfigured ... to adapt to different data
communication interfaces."). 2
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, and
17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fang and
Hutchinson.
Remaining Claims
Appellants argue the remaining claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, all of
which are dependent, should be allowed for the same reasons as independent
claims 1, 9, and 1 7, and that the additional references cited do not cure the
alleged deficiencies regarding the rejection of the independent claims.
2 Because the Examiner relies on Hutchinson as teaching different hardware
interfaces corresponding to the plurality of channels, the question whether
Fang alone teaches this element to one of ordinary skill is not before us (e.g.,
whether it is well known in the art that a standard media player may utilize
multiple hardware interfaces such as those corresponding to USB, HDMI, S-
video, and/or composite video).
5
Appeal2015-004612
Application 13/098,437
Br. 13. Because Appellants' arguments did not persuade us of error
regarding the Examiner's rejection of the independent claims, we also
sustain the rejections of the dependent claims, specifically, the rejection of
claims 2, 4---6, 10, and 12-14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fang and Hutchinson; the rejection of claims 7, 8, 15, 16,
and 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fang,
Hutchinson, and Altunbasak; and the rejection of claims 3, 11, 18, and 20
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fang, Hutchinson,
and Du.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6