Ex Parte Gabara et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2017

13013886 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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.
InterruptOl 9570
EXAMINER
PULLIAS, JESSE SCOTT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/013,886 01/26/2011
84070 7590
Thaddeus Gabara
62 Burlington Rd
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
Quinton Andrew Gabara
01/24/2017 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 QUINTON ANDREW GABARA,
CONSTANCE MARIE GABARA,
HELEN MARY GABARA,
SIMONE MARIE GABARA,
CASSANDRA MARLENE GABARA,
ASHER THOMAS GABARA, and
THADDEUS JOHN GABARA
Appeal 2016-006438
Application 13/013,886
Technology Center 2600
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 38—59.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify TrackThings LLC as the real party in interest (App.
Br. 1).
2 Claims 1—37 have been canceled.
Appeal 2016-006438
Application 13/013,886
Exemplary Claim
Claim 38, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
38. A portable wireless system comprising:
a voice recognition system configured to distinguish each
voice in a conversation of a plurality of people in the same place;
and
a request circuit configured to isolate and interpret a
command within the conversation, wherein the command is
selected from the group consisting of determining and providing
a meaning of at least one word within the conversation, sending
an email containing a portion of the conversation, and providing
a grammatical correction to a statement in the conversation.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 38—57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forbes (US 2008/0114594 Al, May 15, 2008). Final Act.
3-8.
Claims 58 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forbes in view of Kaeser (US 8,150,676 Bl, Apr. 3,
2012). Final Act. 8—9.
ANALYSIS3
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. 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
3 Appellants focus their contentions on claim 38, allowing independent
claims 44 and 51 to stand or fall with claim 38. App. Br. 6—16. Separate
patentability is not argued for dependent claims 39-43, 45—50, and 52—59
other than their dependence from claims 3 8, 44, and 51. Id.
2
Appeal 2016-006438
Application 13/013,886
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Based on Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 2—3), the
dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Forbes teaches “a portable wireless system”
as recited in exemplary claim 38.
We begin our analysis by first considering the scope and meaning of
the claim limitation “portable wireless system” which must be given the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ 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”). Our reviewing court further
states, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary
artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc).
In particular, Appellants’ Specification states the following:
A portable wireless system is a device that contains many
different blocks that are used to perform several functions. For
example, portable wireless systems include the iPod from Apple
Computer Inc. or the Android phone from Google. In addition,
the portable wireless system can be customized to perform a
3
Appeal 2016-006438
Application 13/013,886
particular function such as reading a book in a device called
Kindle from Amazon.
Spec. 13.
In other words, according to the Appellants’ Specification, the
portable wireless system includes mobile phones, such as the Android
phone. We note that the relevant portions of Appellants’ Specification cited
above do not provide an express definition of a “portable wireless system.”
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellants’ Specification, Forbes’ “mobile
phone” meets the claimed “portable wireless system” limitation. Ans. 4—5
(citing Forbes 1 82, Fig. 2, wireless phone 202).
Appellants’ argument (App Br. 6) that Forbes’ mobile phone is not a
portable wireless system because it may be connected to a Kiosk Personal
Computer is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of
claim 38, which does not preclude connecting the portable wireless system
to an external device such as a Kiosk PC.
Thus, we sustain the rejections of claims 38—59.
CONCFUSION
The Examiner did not erred in rejecting claims 38—59 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 38—59 are affirmed.
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).
4
Appeal 2016-006438
Application 13/013,886
AFFIRMED
5