Ex Parte Evans

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2018

13191585 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2018)

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.
13/191,585 07/27/2011 Ethan Z. Evans 170106-1420 4390
71247 7590 03/13/2
Client 170101 c/o
THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP
3200 WINDY HILL RD SE
SUITE 1600E
ATLANTA, GA 30339
EXAMINER
BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2018 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):
uspatents @ tkhr.com
docketing @ thomashorstemeyer. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ETHAN Z. EVANS
Appeal 2017-008846
Application 13/191,585
Technology Center 2600
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, SHARON FENICK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1-25, which are all the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Amazon Technologies, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-008846
Application 13/191,585
Introduction
Appellant describes the invention as “relating] to preconfiguring a
purchased computing device” and discloses embodiments that “enable
remote interactive preconfiguration” and allow personalization of the
devices. Spec. ^ 9. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium
embodying a program executable in a first computing device,
the program, when executed, causing the first computing device
to at least:
instantiate a virtual device instance for a second
computing device;
encode a video signal and an audio signal generated by
the virtual device instance into a media stream;
generate a user interface that includes a graphical
representation of the second computing device, wherein the
graphical representation is configured to show the video signal
of the media stream;
send the user interface and the media stream to a client;
obtain input data from the client and provides [sic] the
input data to the virtual device instance, wherein at least a
portion of the input data effects a change to a configuration of
the virtual device instance, the change comprising a change of
data of the virtual device instance or a change of at least one
installed software setting of the virtual device instance',
obtain an order for a physical version of the second
computing device from the client;
initiate copying of the configuration of the virtual device
instance to the physical version of the second computing device,
the configuration being adopted by the physical version of the
second computing device', and
initiate a shipment of the physical version of the second
computing device to an address.
App. Br. 21-22 (Claims App’x) (two disputed limitations emphasized).
2
Appeal 2017-008846
Application 13/191,585
Rejections
Claims 1—4, 11-15, and 17-25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Helot et al. (US 2002/0169675 Al;
Nov. 14, 2002) (“Helot”) and Duggal (US 2008/0034408 Al; Feb. 7, 2008).
Final Act. 2-9.
Claims 5-10 and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Helot, Duggal, and Lee (US 2005/0102199 Al; May
12,2005). Final Act. 9-11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions.
Instead, as consistent with our discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings and reasons as set forth in the Final Office Action from which this
appeal is taken and as set forth in the Answer. We highlight the following
for emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Helot teaches the first
disputed limitation of claim l2 because, while the cited portions of Helot
disclose “interacting with the ordering system” (Helot 7), Helot is silent as
to any interactions “effecting] a change to a configuration of the virtual
device instance,”’ as recited. App. Br. 9. Appellant contends “Helot limits
its discussion to the selection of options for a computer to be ordered, with
2 The full text of the first disputed limitation is: “obtain input data from the
client and provides the input data to the virtual device instance, wherein at
least a portion of the input data effects a change to a configuration of the
virtual device instance, the change comprising a change of data of the virtual
device instance or a change of at least one installed software setting of the
virtual device instance.”
3
Appeal 2017-008846
Application 13/191,585
no relation to a change to a ‘virtual device instance,’” and that the citations
to Helot do not “appear to relate in any way to ‘selecting . . . software to be
installed on the about to be purchased virtual device,’ as asserted by the
Office Action.” Id. at 9, 10.
This argument is unpersuasive. Appellant reads Helot too narrowly.
Helot’s Figure 3 is instructive:
300
FIG, 3
Figure 3 is a block diagram illustrating “a system and a method for ordering
a product or service using a user interface that provides real-time updating of
available options and properties of the product or service.” Helot 37.
4
Appeal 2017-008846
Application 13/191,585
Helot’s ordering system 300 includes, inter alia, (1) a representation
module 335 that provides a real-time graphical and audio representation of a
product or service being ordered, (2) an options module 340 used to present
the available options for the product or service, and (3) a database 360 that
stores data for the ordering process. See Helot 37—42. Helot’s system
creates information in its database for a new order, and then updates that
information as a user selects or changes options. Id. Helot’s system also
includes an interactive computer environment that presents a graphical or
audio representation of ordered equipment and permits a user to select any
available options when ordering equipment. Id. at 7, Fig. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood claim l’s “virtual device” encompasses Helot’s real-time
graphical and audio representation of a computer device being ordered.
Final Act. 3 (finding Helot teaches “a true visual (in graphical form) and
audio representation of [a] device presented to the user”); id. at 2-3 (finding
Helot teaches in paragraphs 7 and Figure 6 “instantiating] a virtual device
instance for a second computing device”). Thus, when creating the
information for a new order of a computer, Helot teaches “instantiating] a
virtual device instance for a second device,” as recited. Furthermore,
because Helot describes “automatic real-time updates” that provide the user
information about “what has been ordered” and “the available options,”
Helot at least suggests the recited change to a configuration of the virtual
device instance. Helot 8; Final Act. 3 (citing Helot 8, 22, 23, 33).
Moreover, Appellant’s contention that Helot in no way relates to
selecting software for installation on a virtual device is also unpersuasive.
The first disputed limitation requires “effect[ing] a change to a configuration
5
Appeal 2017-008846
Application 13/191,585
of the virtual device instance, the change comprising a change of data of the
virtual device instance or a change of at least one installed software setting
of the virtual device instance.” By using the conjunction “or”, this
requirement requires either effecting a change of data of the virtual device
instance or effecting a change of at least one installed software setting of the
virtual device instance. When a user selects an option to configure a device
under order, Helot’s system stores data that represents the selected
configuration, which effects a change to data of the virtual device instance
configuration. Thus, Helot “effects a change to a configuration of the virtual
device instance, the change comprising a change of data of the virtual device
instance or a change of at least one installed software setting of the virtual
device instance,” as recited.
Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in finding Helot teaches
“initiat[ing] copying of the configuration of the virtual device instance to the
physical version of the second computing device, the configuration being
adopted by the physical version of the second computing device,” as recited
by claim 1. App. Br. 11-12. Appellant contends this second disputed
limitation “recites actually copying configuration information,” whereas
Helot is silent as to such copying.
This argument is also unpersuasive. As discussed above, Helot
teaches an ordering system for a user to interactively configure a computer
system. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, “Helot in paragraphs 49 and
50 discloses that the virtual selections of the components and configurations
are implemented/copied in the actual physical product LE configured
physical computer that is subsequently shipped out to the customer/
consumer.” Ans. 7. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, by disclosing
6
Appeal 2017-008846
Application 13/191,585
shipping the user a physical product that has the same configuration (i.e., a
copy of the configuration) of the virtual device created during the ordering
process, Helot teaches or suggests the second disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 1.
For the same reasons we also sustain the rejections of independent claims 2
and 15, which include similar disputed limitations.3 Appellant argues error
in the rejections of the dependent claims 3-14 and 16-25 solely based on the
limitations of the dependent claims; therefore, we also sustain their
rejections. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 1-25.
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).
AFFIRMED
3 Independent claims 2 and 15 recite requirements that are essentially the
same as the disputed limitations of claim 1. See App. Br. 22, 25-26 (Claims
App’x). In rejecting claims 2 and 15, the Examiner similarly relies on Helot
for teaching these requirements. See Final Act. 2—4; 5-7. Appellant argues
the Examiner errs in the rejections of claims 2 and 15 for essentially the
same reasons as for claim 1. See App. Br. 12-19.
7