Ex Parte De Angelis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13153759 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 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.
13/153,759 06/06/2011 Fabio De Angelis FR920110022US1 9692
37945 7590 11/17/2017
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. VO, TIM T
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FABIO DE ANGELIS, NICOLA MILANESE, SANDRO
PICCININI, and SERGIO TARCHI
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,7591
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,759
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ invention “discloses a solution for using a single set of
interface input devices to control multiple computing devices.” Spec. 111.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for switching interface device input between
computing devices comprising:
automatically activating an interface input control
program to identify a unique interface trigger;
upon receipt of input entered using at least one interface
input device of a primary computing device, interpreting of said
received input by a corresponding device driver on the primary
computing device associated with a configuration of the
primary computing device and the at least one interface input
device generating the input, wherein the interpreted input is
identified as the unique interface trigger by the interface input
control program, wherein the unique interface trigger is a user-
defined series of inputs made with the at least one interface
input device that triggers the interface input control program for
switching an input state of the primary computing device to
direct the interpreted input to the primary computing device or
the secondary computing device based on the unique interface
trigger;
when the primary computing device is in a first input
state representing local use of the at least one interface input
device, directing interpreted input to only an operating system
of the primary computing device for further handling; and
when the primary computing device is in a second input
state representing remote use of the at least one interface input
device, redirecting interpreted input by the interface input
control program to the secondary computing device via the
physical connector cable for further handling, wherein the
secondary computing device recognizes the interpreted input
received over the physical connector cable as having originated
2
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,759
from interface input devices local to the secondary computing
device.
References and Rejections
1. Claims 1—5, 7, 8, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen (US 2003/0079055 Al, published Apr.
24, 2003), Pagan (US 7,243,245 B2, issued July 10, 2007), and Abraham
(US 7,904,633 B2, issued Mar. 8, 2011). Final Act. ^U12.
2. Claims 13, 15, 16, and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen and Abraham. Final Act. 12—19.
3. Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pagan, Abraham, and Chu (US 2011/0063222 Al,
published Mar. 17,2011). Final Act. 19-20.
4. Claims 9, 10, and 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chen, Pagan, Abraham, and Hsu (US 2006/0282576
Al, published Dec. 14, 2006). Final Act. 20-21.
5. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, Abraham, and Hsu. Final Act. 21—22.
6. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, Pagan, Abraham, and Bolen (US 7,136,993 B2,
issued Nov. 14, 2006). Final Act. 22.
7. Claims 12 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, Pagan, Abraham, and Lin (US 8,037,191 B2, issued
Oct. 11, 2011). FinalAct.23.
3
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,759
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Whether Chen Teaches First and Second Input States
Claim 1 requires a “first input state representing local use of the at
least one interface input device” and a “second input state representing
remote use of the at least one interface input device.” Appellants argue
[t]here is no teaching of a ‘first state’ as claimed by Appellant,
which is a counterpart to a claimed ‘second state.’ In each of
these states, the specific input device information is sent to either
the primary computing device (first state) or the secondary
computing device (second state). There is nothing in Chen that
indicates that the notebook computer 200 can’t be used at the
same time that the server group management program 212 is
operating.
App. Br. 12.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument. We agree with the
Examiner that Chen discloses a “first inputs state” in which the local
keyboard controls the local notebook computer. Ans. 6—8 (citing Chen || 2,
18, 23—28; Figs. 2 and 3). We also agree that Chen discloses a “second
input state” in which the user selects a remote server to manage using the
shared keyboard of the local notebook computer. Ans. 8—10 (citing Chen
128, Figs. 2 and 3). Claim 1, however, does not preclude the primary
computing device (i.e. Chen’s notebook 200) from being used at the same
time that the interface input control program (i.e. Chen’s server group
management program 212) is operating, as Appellants contend. Similarly,
claim 1 does not preclude the primary computing device from being used at
the same time that the secondary computing device (i.e. Chen’s server 220)
4
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,759
is being used. Thus, Appellants’ arguments are incommensurate with the
scope of claim 1 and therefore, unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Whether Chen Teaches or Suggests an Interface Input Control Program for
Switching an Input State of the Primary Computing Device to Direct the
Interpreted Input to the Primary Computing Device or the Secondary
Computing Device Based on the Unique Interface Trigger
Appellants argue “[n]othing in Chen teaches an interface input control
program that monitors input to detect an input trigger that causes the input
signals to be routed from the primary computing device to the secondary
computing device directly from the device drivers of the primary computing
device, as claimed.” App. Br. 13.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner finds Chen’s
notebook computer “must include an operating system (OS) and a device
driver program (software) for interpreting input signals generated by
pressing specific keys on the keyboard 202 or by movement of the
pointing device 203.” Ans. 7. The Examiner further finds that after
selection of a server to be managed, “inputs from the shared keyboard 202
and/or pointing device 203 (‘at least one interface input device’), received
by the CPU 210 of the notebook computer 200 (‘primary computing device’)
to perform management tasks on the server 220, are interpreted as inputs
for the server 220.” Ans. 8—9. Once it is determined that the input signals
are intended for the server, the Examiner finds “the remote operation input
signals from the keyboard 202 or pointing device 203 are redirected by the
management program installed on the notebook computer 200, to the USB
port of the server 220 (‘secondary computing device’) via the USB cable
230 (Fig. 3).” Ans. 9. We agree with and adopt the aforementioned
Examiner’s findings and thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s finding
5
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,759
that Chen teaches an interface input control program (Chen’s management
program) that routes input signals from the primary computing device
(Chen’s notebook) to the secondary computing device (Chen’s server) for
further handling, where the secondary computing device recognizes the
input as having originated from interface input devices local to the
secondary computing device.
Whether Chen or Abraham Teach Away From the Claimed Invention
Appellants argue
Abraham teaches a ‘KVM’ switch arrangement in hardware between
I/O devices and the computing devices. This is problematic when
considered with Chen, which identifies KVM switches as a problem . .
. . Thus Chen teaches away from the using a KVM switch in the first
place because Chen seeks to eliminate the KVM switch (see Chen,
paras. 0009-0011).
App. Br. 13.
Regarding KVM switches, Chen states “One drawback ... is that the
KVM switch and the dedicated KVM cables are costly to purchase, which
would undesirably increase the cost of implementation.” Chen ]f 12. We do
not find this statement to rise to the level of teaching away, nor do we find
this statement to preclude Chen from being modified by the teachings of
Abraham, even if Abraham teaches a KVM switch arrangement. Simply
because a product is described as “inferior” in some respects does not by
itself constitute a teaching away from using the “inferior” product. In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Teaching a result would be
inferior or less desirable is not a teaching away unless the use “would render
the result inoperable.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374,
1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade usChen teaches away from the claimed invention.
6
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,759
Whether Abraham Teaches or Suggests That the Unique Interface Trigger is
a User-Defined Series of Inputs
Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief “the Examiner
did not assert, nor do Abraham et al. teach, show or suggest the series of
keystrokes or key sequence as being user-defined.'” Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner finds Abraham discloses a system and method for
interfacing a plurality of computers with shared input/output devices and
that a user can input a series of keystrokes to toggle connection between the
keyboard and each one of the plurality of computers. Ans. 11 (citing
Abraham 3:20-45). We agree with the Examiner that, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation, Abraham teaches or suggests a user defining a
series of inputs by entering a series of keystrokes to trigger the switch
between the computers. Thus, Abraham teaches “the unique interface
trigger is a user-defined series of inputs,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and independent claim 17, commensurately recited, which were
argued together as a group. See App. Br. 13. We also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4—10, 12, and 18—22 which depend from
one of claims 1 and 17, and for which Appellants do not present arguments
for separate patentability.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “enabl[ing] a user to define
a series of inputs for establishing the unique interface trigger.” Appellants
argue that Chen and Abraham at best only teach a series of keystrokes in
Abraham that cause the KVM switch to change. App. Br. 15; see also Reply
Br. 5. Consequently, according to Appellants, “the applied references, alone
7
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,759
or in combination, do not teach ‘configuring an interface input control
program to enable a user to define a series of input for establishing the
unique interface trigger to switch the primary computing device between
the first input state and the second input state’ as in Claim 3.” Reply Br. 5.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. As explained with respect to
claim 1 above, Abraham teaches that the series of user inputs are used to
toggle the connection between devices. The Examiner additionally
identifies Chen’s teaching of a management program and concludes the
combination teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act. 10—11. According
to the Examiner, because the combination of Chen and Abraham teaches a
user inputting a predetermined series of keystrokes; thus, “the driver and/or
the management program . . . allows the user to define and implement to
define a series of keystrokes or key sequence that can be recognized by the
driver and/or the management program” a predetermined series of
keystrokes. Ans. 22. Although we agree Abraham teaches a predetermined
series of keystrokes and Chen teaches a management program, the Examiner
has not set forth with specificity how the references, taken alone or in
combination, teach or suggest “enabling a user to define a series of inputs
for establishing the unique interface trigger,” as recited in claim 3
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 3.
Claim 13
Appellants argue that claim 13 requires that the interpreted input “is
redirected to the secondary computing device, and that the redirected
interpreted input is recognized as being from an input device connected to
the USB port of the secondary computing device.” App. Br. 14. According
8
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,759
to Appellants Chen does not teach this limitation because “Chen teaches that
the servers do not have I/O devices attached to them.” App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Figure 3 of
Appellants’ Specification depicts primary and secondary computing devices
in the form of a desktop computer and a notebook computer respectively.
Input devices, such as a keyboard and a mouse are connected to the primary
desktop computer and a USB cable connects the primary desktop computer
to the secondary notebook computer. Figure 3 is depicted below.
Primary Computing Device
Figure 3 illustrating a configuration of embodiments of
Appellants’ invention.
As can be seen in Figure 3, the secondary computing device does not
have any input devices connected to its USB ports. Appellants’
Specification describes that in this configuration “since the input sent to the
9
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,759
secondary computing device 330 over the USB cable 325 is in the format of
a USB keyboard 315 and/or mouse 320 ... the secondary computing device
330 can be unaware that the keyboard 315 and mouse 320 [are] not locally-
connected.” Spec. 172. Thus, the notebook computer recognizes the input
received from the keyboard and mouse of the primary computer as being
received from local input devices even though the notebook computer does
not have any input devices connected to it via USB ports. Thus, we find that
input devices do not have to be connected to USB ports of the secondary
computer for the secondary computer to recognize the input signals received
from the primary computer as being received from local input devices.
The Examiner finds Chen teaches that input signals from local input
devices of the primary computing device (Chen’s notebook) are provided via
a USB cable to the USB port of Chen’s secondary computing device (Chen’s
remote server). Ans. 18. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the remote
server recognizes the signals as having originated from input devices
connected to the USB port.
Appellants also argue “Chen does not teach any such unique interface
trigger which is a user-defined series of inputs that causes change in input
state of the computing device. In fact, Chen is completely silent about any
such a user-defined series of inputs to cause a unique interface trigger. . . .
Abraham on the other hand teaches having special electronic switch
arrangement in the hardware to enable the user to switch, which both the
claimed invention and Chen seek to avoid.” App. Br. 14. We are
unpersuaded by these arguments for the same reasons explained above with
respect to claim 1.
10
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,759
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 13 and of independent claim 23 which was argued together with claim
13. See App. Br. 15. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims
14—16 and 24—25, which depend from claims 13 and 23 respectively, and for
which Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites “when in the second input
state, inputs received by the secondary computing device from locally-
connected interface input devices are ignored.” Appellants argue Bolen fails
to teach or suggest this limitation because it discloses that local input is
accepted even when the remote input is present. As support Appellants
point to Bolen’s disclosure that “[i]f the remote keyboard is active and
legacy USB is inactive, and a key is pressed on the local USB keyboard, a
delay of a predetermined time is set to detect additional local USB keyboard
inputs before enabling legacy USB and inactivating the remote keyboard.”
App. Br. 15—16. Moreover, Appellants argue that because Bolen does not
ignore local inputs, Bolen teaches away from the claimed invention. App.
Br. 16.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Instead we agree
with, and adopt the Examiner’s finding that Bolen teaches ignoring local
input when dealing with the remote device. Ans. 23—24. In particular, we
agree that the fact that Bolen detects local inputs but does not enable the
local keyboard until additional local inputs are detected teaches or suggest
ignoring the local inputs when in the second input state. In other words,
inputs on the local keyboard are ignored (even though they are detected)
until additional inputs are made, and the system transitions to the first input
11
Appeal 2017-002313
Application 13/153,759
state. It follows, Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us Bolen teaches away from the claimed invention.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—25 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 is reversed.
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(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12