Ex Parte Hirvonen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

13050348 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/050,348 03/17/2011
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
06/29/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ari-Pekka Hirvonen
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.
P5080US01 2503
EXAMINER
AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARI-PEKKA HIRVONEN, LAURI RAUHANEN,
AAPO MATIAS HASU, JARI TAPIO IJAS, RIT MISHRA,
and JONATAN HEDBERG
Appeal2014-008761
Application 13/050,348
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008761
Application 13/050,348
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
representing content data. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method compnsmg facilitating a processing of and/or
processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one
signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one
signal based, at least in part, on the following:
one or more data types of content associated with a device;
at least one determination of effect information regarding one or
more effects on one or more resources of the device with respect
to the one or more data types;
at least one presentation of one or more representations of the
one or more data types, wherein the one or more representations
are based, at least in part, on the effect information; and
one or more suggestions for user action based, at least in part, on
the effect information.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lazarus US 2009/0125911 Al May 14, 2009
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejections:
2
Appeal2014-008761
Application 13/050,348
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lazarus.
THE ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether Lazarus discloses the limitation of "one
or more suggestions for user action based, at least in part, on the effect
information," as recited in claims 1 and 11.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Action and
add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Lazarus does not disclose the limitation of "one
or more suggestions for user action based, at least in part, on the effect
information," as recited in claims 1 and 11 (App. Br. 4--5). Appellants in
particular argue that Lazarus simply suggests presenting a current setting of
an amount of memory reserved for processing each supported Page
Description Language (PDL) of listing 515 (App. Br. 7). Appellants assert
that the current setting cannot reasonably be treated as a suggestion for user
action at least because no user action is even necessary to use the current
setting (App. Br. 7). Appellants argue, that contrary to the Examiner's
assertion, "a user has the option/suggestion to select a
profile or create a new one or alter an existing one using the interface as
depicted in figure 5," at best, finds support in Lazarus, at paragraph 37,
which simply states, "[a]s depicted in the figure the system administrator or
operator may select a profile name 505 from a drop-down list, which may
have various entries for different purposes" (App. Br. 7-8). Moreover,
Appellants further assert, that even when taking, arguendo, the Examiner's
3
Appeal2014-008761
Application 13/050,348
asserted teachings as true, Lazarus, nonetheless, would fail to disclose any
suggestion for user action, much less in the context of the claimed invention,
at least because Lazarus fails to even remotely suggest any indication
suggesting to: (A) select a particular existing profile; (B) create a new
profile; or (C) alter an existing profile (App. Br. 8).
We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Lazarus'
Figure 5 and paragraphs 37-39 disclose that a user is able to adjust various
resources of a computing printing system to achieve desired efficiency (Ans.
3). We also agree with the Examiner that the user is presented with a
suggestion to select a profile or create a new one or alter an existing one
using the interface of Figure 5 (Ans. 3). In other words, the presentation for
selection by the user of pre-existing profiles for resource allocation within
the printing system constitutes suggestions to the user, and the user can
select a pre-existing profile, or the user has the ability through the user
interface presented in Figure 5 to adjust and save a new profile or change an
existing profile (see Fig. 5, paras. 10-11, 37-39).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Lazarus discloses the
limitation of "one or more suggestions for user action based, at least in part,
on the effect information," as recited in claims 1 and 11. Appellants raise
substantially the same arguments with respect to claims 6 and 16 (App. Br.
9). Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 11 and for the
same reasons the rejections of claims 2-10 and 12-20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Lazarus discloses the
limitation of "one or more suggestions for user action based, at least in part,
on the effect information," as recited in claims 1 and 11.
4
Appeal2014-008761
Application 13/050,348
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is
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) (2009).
AFFIRMED
5