Ex Parte Faenger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2017

14190420 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 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.
1576-0943 5183
EXAMINER
BRAY, STEPHEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/190,420 02/26/2014
10800 7590 07/25/2017
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Jens Faenger
07/25/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENS FAENGER
Appeal 2017-005186
Application 14/190,420
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and TERRENCE W.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1—19 and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-005186
Application 14/190,420
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows, with emphasis
added to limitations under appeal:
1. A user interface apparatus comprising:
a support structure configured to be supported on the
head of a user;
a display supported by the support structure;
a memory supported by the support structure and
including program instructions; and
a processor supported by the support structure and
operably connected to the display and to the memory, the
processor configured to execute the program instructions
to
establish a communication link with a configurable
device that is not supported by the support structure,
receive interface data from the configurable
device, the interface data associated with device
interface data displayable by the configurable device,
generate optimized display data using the received
interface data,
render the optimized display data on the display,
receive a user selection of the rendered optimized
display data, and
transmit a control signal to the configurable device
based upon the received user selection.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chi (US 2013/0018659 Al, pub. Jan. 17, 2013) and
Border (US 2013/0278631 Al, pub. Oct. 24, 2013).
Claims 3—8 and 15—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chi, Border, and Katz (US 2014/0361988 Al, pub. Dec.
11,2014).
2
Appeal 2017-005186
Application 14/190,420
Claims 10, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chi, Border, and Ben-Ze’ev (US 6,791,467 Bl, iss. Sept.
14, 2004).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chi, Border, Ben-Ze’ev and Stirbu (US 2013/0207963 Al, pub. Aug.
15,2013).
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chi, Border, Ben-Ze’ev, and Osterhout (US 2014/0063055 Al, pub.
Mar. 6, 2014).
ANALYSIS1
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. To the extent consistent
with the analysis below, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. Ans. 2—8. We highlight and address specific
arguments for emphasis as follows.
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2—6, 8—15, 17—19, and 21.
Although separate headings are provided for numerous of these claims, the
discussions therein merely repeat or reference the arguments directed to
claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed
further herein.
3
Appeal 2017-005186
Application 14/190,420
Appellant contends that the combination of Chi and Border does not
teach receiving “interface data” (hereinafter “the disputed limitation”), as
recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 5—8.
We begin our analysis by first considering the scope and meaning of
the claim limitation “interface data” which must be given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure, as
explained in In re Morris:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that “claims must be interpreted
as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”).
In the present case, the Specification does not provide an express
definition of “interface data.” Appellant’s Specification in paragraph 43
provides the context for “interface data”:
[0043] ... when the interface apparatus 100 connects to the
device 104, interface data (including the current operating state
of the device and the interface 108) is wirelessly transferred 15
(i.e. extracted) to the interface apparatus from the configurable
device 104. This transfer of data includes up to the entire
interface data, including all of the options and selections that
can be made with the interface 108.
(emphasis added).
Although this disclosure is not limiting of the claimed invention, it
provides context for which the phrase “interface data” is interpreted. The
4
Appeal 2017-005186
Application 14/190,420
Examiner construes “interface data” to mean commands that can be
performed to control the configurable device. Ans. 2. We agree.
The Examiner finds in Border,
Paragraph [0783] of Border et al discloses recognizing a feature
(i.e. an electronic device such as a TV or appliance.), pinging
the feature, and communicating with the feature.
Paragraph [0782] of Border et al discloses using smart glasses
to communicate with a security system and to control said
security system.
Ans. 3 (emphasis added).
In particular, Border discloses “commands.. .to operate various
devices such as TVs, VCRs, DVD players, appliances, and the like.” Border
1782 (emphasis added).
The Examiner also finds, and we agree:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time that the invention was made to modify the teachings of
Chi with the teachings of Border et al in order to form a
wearable computing device which allows a user to control a
plurality of functions in a home environment with smart
glasses.
Ans. 5 (emphasis added).
Based on our review of Border and consistent with the Examiner’s
stated position (Ans. 2—3), we interpret the claim language “interface data”
using the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s
disclosure, to include, for example, the commands in Border. See Morris,
127 F.3d at 1054.
As to Appellant’s contentions regarding claims 7 and 16 (App. Br.
11—14), the Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments supported by
sufficient evidence. (Ans. 6—7). Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s
5
Appeal 2017-005186
Application 14/190,420
findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by
reference.
We have considered Appellant’s Reply Brief but find it unpersuasive
in rebutting the Examiner’s responses.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—
19 and 21 under § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1—19 and 21.
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
6