Ex Parte CHO et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 4, 2019

13238927 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/238,927 09/21/2011
66547 7590 02/06/2019
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 2IOE
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hyung-rae CHO
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.
784-134 (SH-39279) 5794
EXAMINER
BROOKS, DAVID T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/06/2019 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):
pto@farrelliplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYUNG-RAE CHO and HYUN-JOO OH
Appeal 2018-003464
Application 13/238,927
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 5-12, 14, 15, 17, 21-23, 27-32, and 34--45, i.e., all
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-003464
Application 13/238,927
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the "invention relates generally to a
method and apparatus for controlling a network-based device and computer
readable medium storing the method." Spec. 1: 14--15. 2 The Specification
explains that the method includes "selecting at least one device based on at
least one outdoor environment information; and generating control
information regarding the selected at least one device based on the at least
one outdoor environment information." Id. Abstract; see id. at 2:16-3:19.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows:
1. A computer-implemented method of a device control
apparatus for controlling at least one device placed in a local
area network, the method comprising:
receiving outdoor environment information related to an
area external to the local area network, from at least one
network interface unit of a service provider;
analyzing content of the received outdoor environment
information to detect a keyword corresponding to the outdoor
environment information;
selecting the at least one device placed in the local area
network based on the detected keyword;
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed September 21, 2011; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed February 27, 2017; "Adv. Act." for the Advisory Action,
mailed June 13, 2017; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed August 9, 2017;
"Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed December 12, 2017; and
"Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed February 12, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-003464
Application 13/238,927
generating control information regarding the at least one
selected device;
transmitting the control information to the at least one
selected device; and
selecting, based on usage history information of the at
least one selected device, a user device located external to the
local area network to transmit guide information generated
based on the control information;
transmitting the guide information to the selected user
device.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence ofunpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a), the
Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Meade, II ("Meade")
Lee
US 2003/0071117 Al
US 2004/0202206 Al
Requena et al. ("Requena") US 2006/0059003 Al
Shamoon et al. ("Shamoon") US 2006/0105760 Al
Ollis et al. ("Ollis") US 2008/0147205 Al
Subbloie US 2009/0083167 Al
The Rejections on Appeal
Apr. 17, 2003
Oct. 14, 2004
Mar. 16, 2006
May 18, 2006
June 19, 2008
Mar. 26, 2009
Claims 1, 5, 6, 21, 23, 27, 28, 35, 38, 40, and 42 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Subbloie, Shamoon, Requena, and
Ollis. Final Act. 8-38.
Claims 7-12, 29-32, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Subbloie, Shamoon, Requena, Ollis, and Lee. Final
Act. 3 8--49.
3
Appeal2018-003464
Application 13/238,927
Claims 15, 17, 22, 36, and 43--45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Subbloie, Shamoon, Requena, Meade, and
Lee. Final Act. 49--80.
Claims 14, 37, 39, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Subbloie, Shamoon, Requena, Ollis, and Meade. Final
Act. 80-86.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the§ 103(a) rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we
concur with the Examiner's conclusions concerning unpatentability under
§ 103(a). We adopt the Examiner's findings and reasoning for the§ 103(a)
rejections in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 8-86), Advisory Action
(Adv. Act. 2), and Answer (Ans. 3-7). We add the following to address and
emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103 (a) Rejection of Claims
1, 5, 6, 21, 23, 27, 28, 35, 38, 40, and 42
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 21, AND 23
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 21, and 23 because Shamoon and Requena do not teach or suggest
the following limitations in each claim: "selecting, based on usage history
information of the at least one selected device, a user device located external
to the local area network to transmit guide information generated based on
the control information"; and "transmitting the guide information to the
selected user device." See App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2-5.
Specifically, Appellants assert that in Requena "a first device may be
selected to provide a service to a second device, based on context
4
Appeal2018-003464
Application 13/238,927
information of the first device," and "[t]he first device is not selected to
provide a service to a second device, based on context information of the
second device." App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. Appellants also assert that
Requena ( 1) "actually describes that the first device is selected to transmit
notifications/events (i.e. guide information), to the second device, based on
the context information of the first device," and (2) "merely describes
context information including usage history information." App. Br. 11;
Reply Br. 2 ( emphasis omitted), 4. In addition, Appellants contend that
Shamoon fails to teach or suggest "how the usage history information
affects the linkage relationships among the device control apparatus, the user
device, and the selected devices." Reply Br. 4.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they attack the references individually, while the Examiner relies on the
combined disclosures in the references to teach or suggest the disputed
limitations in claims 1, 21, and 23. See Final Act. 10-14, 19--23, 28-32;
Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3-7. Where a rejection rests on the combined disclosures
in the references, an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking
the references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Ans. 3 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA
1981), and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Here, the Examiner correctly finds that Shamoon discloses:
( 1) selecting a user/ controller device located external to a local area network
to transmit guide information generated based on control information, and
(2) transmitting guide information to the selected user/controller device. See
Final Act. 10-12, 19-22, 28-30; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3--4. In particular,
Shamoon describes a system for monitoring and remotely controlling
5
Appeal2018-003464
Application 13/238,927
various devices in an environment, e.g., a residential environment. Shamoon
,r,r 12, 20-22, 67-70, 73-74. The system includes a base control unit and
multiple remote control units, e.g., cellular telephones. Id. ,r,r 20-22, 29,
39-40, 48, Abstract, Figs. 1--4. The base control unit monitors device
sensors in a particular area, e.g., to allow "for control of air dampers, water
control valves, electronic windows, vents and other such devices utilized
within a typical residential environment," such as "refrigeration, water
heating, security cameras, [and] illumination devices." Id. ,r,r 20, 30-31,
67-70, 73-74, Abstract. The base control unit transmits status information
for the devices to a remote control unit to permit the operator to issue a
command to a selected/controlled device. Id. ,r,r 12, 39, 48, 53-54, 69,
72-73. The base station picks a remote control unit to receive status
information based on predetermined rules, e.g., a designation as a "master"
unit or segregation into classes. Id. ,r,r 48, 73.
For example, when a measured characteristic exceeds a predetermined
limit, the base control unit picks a remote control unit to receive status
information, e.g., an alarm signal. Shamoon ,r,r 69, 73; see id. ,r,r 40, 53-54,
72. The status information gives the operator "the ability to take corrective
action." Id. ,r 69; see id. ,r,r 72-73. Thus, the operator may issue "a
command from the remote control unit" to activate a selected/controlled
device, "such as the HVAC unit, a water heater, a refrigeration appliance or
other discrete device remotely." Id. ,r,r 69, 72; see id. ,r 73.
Shamoon's status information corresponds to the claimed guide
information because the status information permits an operator of a
user/controller device to issue a command to a selected/controlled device.
See Spec. 6:1-10, 15:6-24; see also Final Act. 10-12, 19-22, 28-30.
6
Appeal2018-003464
Application 13/238,927
Hence, the Examiner correctly finds that Shamoon's system "provides for
selecting a [user/controller] device to output guide information to based on
the context of the controlled device." Adv. Act. 2.
In addition, the Examiner correctly finds that Requena discloses
selecting a user/controller device to receive guide information based on
usage-history information of a selected/controlled device. See Final
Act. 13-14, 22-23, 30-32; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3---6. In particular, Requena
describes a system for selecting a controlled device to perform a service for
a controller device based on context information for the controlled device.
Requena ,r,r 13, 15-18, 49, 59, Abstract. The context information provides
information about the controlled device and may include usage-history
information "that lists each user using the [controlled] device and/or service,
when the [ controlled] device and/or service is used, what control point
[controller device] is used to request the service, etc." Id. ,r,r 9, 49, 59,
Abstract. A controller device may select a controlled device based on its
context information, e.g., usage-history information. Id. ,r,r 13, 15-18, 59.
Further, a controlled device may send context-triggered messages, e.g.,
"reminders or notifications," to a controller device. Id. ,r 59. Thus, a
controlled device selects a controller device to receive guide information
("reminders or notifications") based on context information, e.g., usage-
history information. Id. As the Examiner correctly reasons, "this triggering
based on usage history context is a selection based on usage history."
Ans. 4; see Adv. Act. 2.
Appellants argue that the claims "do[] not require that the first device
is selected to transmit notifications/events (i.e. guide information), to the
second device, based on the context information of the first device."
7
Appeal2018-003464
Application 13/238,927
Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, the claims "recite[] selecting a user
device located external to the local area network ( a second device is
selected) to transmit guide information generated based on the control
information, based on usage history information of the at least one selected
device (the information of the first device)." Id. at 3.
Appellants' arguments about what the claims require overlook the
explicit claim language "transmitting the guide information to the selected
user device." See App. Br. 15, 18-19 (Claims App.). According to that
claim language, the user/controller device receives guide information from
the device-control apparatus. Consistent with that claim language, the
Specification explains that the device-control apparatus transmits guide
information to the user/controller device to permit the operator to issue a
command related to the received guide information. See, e.g., Spec.
15:6-24, 20:6-11, 23:11-13 (claim 3), 25:25-27 (claim 19), 26:27-29
(claim 25), Figs. 1-2, 5, 10-11. For instance, the guide information may ask
whether the operator wants to activate a selected/controlled device. Id.
at 6: 1--4, 15:8-11. Appellants do not direct us to any part of the
Specification allegedly supporting a requirement that the user/controller
device transmits guide information. See App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 1-5.
To the contrary, in the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter,
Appellants cite Specification page 15, lines 6-16, and Figure 5, step S503,
to explain the disputed "selecting" limitations. App. Br. 3-5. That part of
the Specification explains that "[i]n step S503, the processor 250" in the
device-control apparatus "transmits guide information ... to the user
[controller] device 130_5 of a selected [controlled] device." Spec. 15:6-7.
That part also explains that "the user [controller] device 130_5 may be
8
Appeal2018-003464
Application 13/238,927
selected based on ... usage history information regarding the selected
[ controlled] device" or location or attribute information for the
selected/controlled device. Id. at 15: 13-15; see id. at 10:2-12. That part
does not indicate that the user/controller device transmits guide information.
See id. at 15:6-16.
For the reasons discussed above, the combined disclosures in the
references teach or suggest the disputed limitations in claims 1, 21, and 23.
See Final Act. 10-12, 19-22, 28-30; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3--4; Shamoon ,r,r 12,
20-22, 29-31, 39--40, 48, 53-54, 67-70, 72-74, Abstract, Figs. 1--4;
Requena ,r,r 9, 13, 15-18, 49, 59, Abstract. Appellants' arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under§ 103(a).
Thus, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 21, and 23.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 5, 6, 27, 28, 35, 38, 40, AND 42
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for dependent
claims 5, 6, 27, 28, 35, 38, 40, and 42. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 1---6.
Thus, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims for the
same reasons as claims 1, 21, and 23. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 7-12, 14,
15, 17, 22, 29-32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, and 43-45
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 15, 22, AND 36
For independent claims 15, 22, and 36, Appellants assert that Meade
and Lee "fail to cure the above-described deficiencies of' the references
cited against independent claims 1, 21, and 23. As explained above,
however, the combined disclosures in the references teach or suggest the
disputed limitations in claims 1, 21, and 23. Thus, we sustain the§ 103(a)
9
Appeal2018-003464
Application 13/238,927
rejection of claims 15, 22, and 3 6 for the same reasons as claims 1, 21,
and 23. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 7-12, 14, 17, 29-32, 34, 37, 39, 41, AND 43--45
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for dependent
claims 7-12, 14, 17, 29-32, 34, 37, 39, 41, and 43--45. App. Br. 12-13;
Reply Br. 1---6. Thus, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of these dependent
claims for the same reasons as the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 5-12, 14, 15,
17, 21-23, 27-32, and 34--45.
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)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
10