Ex Parte Dunne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

14547642 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/547,642 11/19/2014 JONATHAN DUNNE
112978 7590 04/02/2018
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
CAM920130086US2_8150-0681 3992
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LEV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN DUNNE, PAUL FRENCH,
JAMES P. GALVIN JR., andPATRICKJ. O'SULLIVAN
Appeal 2017-011546
Application 14/547,642
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JASON V. MORGAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-5 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. This appeal is related to appeal number
2017-011541 (Application Number 14/165,867). Appeal Brief 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to:
[A] method for dynamically adjusting content for an interaction
impairment. Such a method can begin with the identification of
an impairment associated with an impaired user by an
1 The real party in interest is IBM Corporation. Appeal Brief 1.
Appeal 2017-011546
Application 14/547,642
impairment adaptive data interaction system. The impairment-
adaptive data interaction system can be a computing system
having components that support interaction of the impaired user
with electronic data. The impairment can affect an ability of the
impaired user to interact with electronic data. The impairment
can be defined within an impairment profile associated with the
impaired user.
Specification i-f 7.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for dynamically adjusting content for an interaction
impairment comprising:
identifying of an impairment associated with an impaired user by an
impairment-adaptive data interaction system, wherein the impairment-
adaptive data interaction system is a computing system having components
that support interaction of the impaired user with electronic data, and,
wherein the impairment affects an ability of the impaired user to interact
with electronic data, wherein the impairment is defined within an
impairment profile associated with the impaired user and is accessible by the
impairment-adaptive data interaction system, wherein the impairment profile
expresses:
acceptable limit values for a plurality of data characteristics
incompatible with the impairment of the impaired user and
a type of processing for handling incompatible data characteristics;
in response to a data request, receiving electronic data from a data provider,
wherein at least one characteristic of the electronic data is incompatible with
the impairment of the impaired user, wherein said at least one incompatible
characteristic adversely affects the ability of the impaired user to utilize the
electronic data;
automatically processing the received electronic data to adjust the at
least one incompatible characteristic, wherein said processing reduces an
adverse effect of the at least one incompatible characteristic upon the ability
of the impaired user to utilize the electronic data; and
providing the processed electronic data to the impaired user for
interaction, wherein it is unnecessary for the impaired user to make
additional modifications to the processed electronic data to compensate for
their impairment.
2
Appeal 2017-011546
Application 14/547,642
Rejections on Appeal2
Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(l) as being
anticipated by Scott (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0189278 Al;
published August 24, 2006). Answer 3---6.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Scott and Kennedy (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0274147
Al; published September 18, 2014). Answer 6-7.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 23, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed
September 14, 2017), the Answer (mailed July 14, 2017) and the Final
Action (mailed October 21, 2016) for the respective details.
Anticipation Rejection
Appellants argue, "[i]ndependent claim 1 recites, in part, the
limitations of 'the impairment profile expresses: acceptable limit values for a
plurality of data characteristics incompatible with the impairment of the
impaired user and a type of processing for handling incompatible data
characteristics."' Appeal Brief 10. Appellants acknowledge that the
Examiner relied upon Scott to teach the limitations in question and contend:
[W]hile paragraph [0067] mentions a user profile that includes
"permanent configuration data," Scott is silent as to precisely
what constitutes "permanent configuration data." Appellants
2 The 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) rejection was withdrawn by Examiner. Answer 7-
8.
3
Appeal 2017-011546
Application 14/547,642
have been unable to identify any other teaching of a "profile"
within Scott. Additionally, the claimed invention refers to "data
characteristics incompatible with the impairment of the impaired
user" and limit values associated therewith.
Appeal Brief 10-11.
The Examiner does not address Appellants' argument that Scott fails
to disclose "an impairment profile associated with the impaired user and is
accessible by the impairment-adaptive data interaction system" as recited in
claim 1. See Answer 8-9. Upon reviewing Scott, we agree with Appellants
that there is no correlation between the claimed impairment profile and the
user profile disclosed in Scott. Scott i-f 67. Scott differs from the claimed
invention because Scott requires the impaired user to manually select
accessibility options to make the electronic device's data accessible to the
impaired user (Scott i-f 5) wherein the claimed invention automatically
adjusts the electronic data using the impaired user's profile to make the
electronic device's data accessible to the impaired user (See claim 1).
Constrained by the record before us, we reverse the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2, 3 and 5. 3
Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner rejects claim 4, which depends from claim 1, over Scott
and Kennedy. Final Act. 6-8. We reverse the Examiner's rejection because
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether the claims are obvious as the automation of a manual process, such
as an impaired user manually determining to select accessibility options to
make an electronic device's data accessible to the impaired user. It is well
settled that there is no invention in merely automating a manual activity. In
re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958); see also MPEP § 2144.04(III).
4
Appeal 2017-011546
Application 14/547,642
the Examiner's findings do not show that Kennedy remedies the deficiencies
of Scott as described above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 is
reversed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 4 is reversed.
REVERSED
5