Ex Parte Ganey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2015

12325253 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2015)

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.
12/325,253 11/30/2008 Harriss C. Ganey RPS920080056USNP(710.076) 1137
58127 7590 12/01/2015
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
BHARGAVA, ANIL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2015 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 HARRISS C. GANEY, DAVID W. HILL, and
AARON M. STEWART
____________________

Appeal 2013-005892
Application 12/325,253
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 7–25. Claims 2 and 4–6 are canceled. No other claims are
pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2013-005892
Application 12/325,253

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors;
a display device operatively connected to said one or
more processors, said display device having a visual user
interface;
said visual user interface comprising a first region and a
second region displayed together on said display device;
said first region acting to graphically convey a personal
area network device within wireless range of a personal area
network of said apparatus and connectable to said apparatus;
said second region acting to graphically convey a
personal area network comprising said apparatus and personal
area network devices connected directly with said apparatus via
the personal area network;
said second region further acting to graphically convey
that each personal area network device of the personal area
network is solely connected with said apparatus depicted in said
personal area network and not connected with another personal
area network device.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1, 3, 7–9, 16–19, and 25 in view of the
combination of Cunningham (US 2007/0204231 A1; Aug. 30, 2007) and
Cheng (US 2008/0101258; May 1, 2008); claims 10–12, 20, and 21 in view
of Cunningham, Cheng, and Chin (US 5,942,985; Aug. 24, 1999); and
claims 13–15 and 22–24 in view of the combination of Cunningham, Cheng,
and Beer (US 2009/0052893; Feb. 26, 2009).

Appeal 2013-005892
Application 12/325,253

3
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 16, and
25 because the combination of Cunningham and Cheng fails to teach or
suggest “said second region further acting to graphically convey that each
personal area network device of the personal area network is solely
connected with said apparatus depicted in said personal area network and not
connected with another personal area network device.” See App. Br. 12–13
(quoting claim 1). Specifically, Appellants argue Cunningham discloses a
hub “as an intermediary or infrastructure device, to which other devices,
including non-personal area network devices (PANs) connect” (App. Br. 11
(citing Cunningham ¶ 32), and, because Cunningham’s hub is connected to
the Internet, Cunningham does not disclose a personal area network. App.
Br. 12 (“Cunningham is not directed to personal area network device (PAN)
connections because it explicitly includes the Internet as connected to ‘the
hub’ (itself not a PAN device) and the devices of more than one user . . . .”).
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood Cunningham’s disclosure of computing and network
environments, including a “home network,” to teach or suggest the claimed
“personal area network.” See Ans. 4 (citing Cunningham Figs. 9, 13, ¶¶ 23,
81–91). We are similarly unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the
Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 13–15 and 22–24, which limit
the recited arrangements of data to displays of “a ring graphic.” See App.
Br. 13–14. We find no error in the Examiner’s rejection, which cites Beer as
evidence that networks depicted in ring arrangements were known to
Appeal 2013-005892
Application 12/325,253

4
persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention. See
Ans. 6.
Accordingly, having considered each of Appellants’ arguments in
light of the Examiner’s rejection and the evidence of record, we are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 7–25.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, and
7–25 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

lv