Ex Parte Hatambeiki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12629423 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/629,423 12/02/2009 Arsham Hatambeiki
34018 7590 10/03/2016
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 WEST WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
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.
81230.135US2 7785
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LEV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
j arosikg@gtlaw.com
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARSHAM HATAMBEIKI, CHRISTOPHER A. CHAMBERS,
HAN-SHEN YUH, and STEVEN CLEGG
Appeal2014-000981
Application 12/629,423
Technology Center 2100
Before MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-17, and 26-28, which constitute all of the
claims currently pending in the application. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-000981
Application 12/629,423
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for configuring a controlling device to
command functional operations of an intended target appliance,
compnsmg:
creating on an user interface editing device a generic
graphical user interface for the controlling device whereupon
the created, generic graphical user interface is comprised of
user interface elements that are associated with functional
operations of a virtual equivalent of an appliance;
transferring the created, generic graphical user interface
to the controlling device from the user interface editing device;
receiving into the controlling device data that functions
to identify the intended target appliance; and
causing the controlling device to use the received data
that functions to identify the intended target appliance to
establish within the controlling device a link between the
transferred, created, generic graphical user interface and the
intended target appliance whereupon activation of those user
interface elements of the transferred, created, generic graphical
user interface that were associated with functional operations of
the virtual equivalent of an appliance will cause the controlling
device to transmit commands to control corresponding
functional operations of the intended target appliance.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination ofRezvani (US 7,734,724
B2; issued June 8, 2010) and Bush (US 6,397,186 Bl; issued May 28, 2002).
Final Act. 3-7.
2
Appeal2014-000981
Application 12/629,423
Claims 10 and 12-17 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination ofRezvani, Bush, and various
additional references. See Final Act. 7-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions,
and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner
errs in finding the combination of Rezvani and Bush teaches or suggests
transferring the created, generic graphical user interface to the controlling
device and causing the controlling device ... to establish within the
controlling device a link between the transferred, created, generic graphical
user interface and the intended target appliance, as recited in independent
claim 1.
The Examiner relies on Rezvani to teach the disputed limitations.
Final Act. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds Rezvani teaches
transferring the created, generic GUI to the controlling device and that the
controlling device causes the virtual equivalent of an appliance to be linked
to the intended target appliance. Final Act. 3.
Appellants contend Rezvani does not transfer a generic graphic user
interface that is thereafter caused to be linked to an appliance. App. Br. 4--5.
Specifically, Appellants argue the controlling device does not establish a
link between a generic graphical user interface and a specific intended target
after the graphical user interface is transferred, but instead the link is already
pre-established within the database server before the virtual representation
can be requested/received by a controlling device. App. Br. 5; see also App.
3
Appeal2014-000981
Application 12/629,423
Br. 4 (describing Rezvani as disclosing a database with records that contain
entries that link virtual representations to a specific device). Appellants
further argue the transferred graphical user interface is linked to a specific
device at the time that the graphical user interface is created and not after it
is transferred to the controlling device. Reply Br. 4.
Claim 1 requires: (i) transferring to the controlling device the created,
generic graphical user interface, which is comprised of user interface
elements associated with functional operations of a virtual equivalent of an
appliance; and (ii) causing the controlling device to establish within the
controlling device a link between the transferred generic graphical user
interface and the intended target appliance. The sections of Rezvani cited by
the Examiner describe devices that include a customizable user interface
including virtual representations of the actual user interface of the device.
Rezvani 9:25-33. A web page displaying a user interface that represents
that device is generated by extracting the associated record for the device
from the database server. Rezvani 10:37-50. Rezvani further describes that
users may monitor and control the devices via a remote site using a suitable
user interface, which may be constructed using one or more templates that
lay out the look and position of the features of a device. Rezvani 15:8-22.
We agree with Appellants that the user interface transferred to the
controlling device in Rezvani (remote site used by user to monitor and
control the device) is already linked to the specific device and is associated
with functional operations of the specific device. Thus, we agree the cited
sections of Rezvani do not describe transferring a generic user interface
associated with functional operations of a virtual equivalent of an appliance
4
Appeal2014-000981
Application 12/629,423
and causing the controlling device to establish a link between the transferred
generic graphical user interface and the intended target appliance.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants persuade us of error in the
rejection of claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on the additional prior art
of record to cure the deficiency of Rezvani discussed above. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of independent claim 1
and the remaining claims, which depend from claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-17,
and 26-28.
REVERSED
5