Ex Parte HREHA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2018

14684823 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/684,823 04/13/2015
68103 7590 07/16/2018
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jason HREHA
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.
0201-2048 7141
EXAMINER
SKHOUN, HICHAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2018 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON HREHA
Appeal2018-005652
Application 14/684,823 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-35, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Appellant") is the applicant, as provided
for under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and is also identified in the Brief as the real party
in interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005652
Application 14/684,823
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellant's invention relates to a computing system that "identifies
what actions may be performed by apps presently installed on [a] user
device and recommends apps that can perform additional actions and/or
improve the operation of the existing actions." Spec. ,r 51. 2
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 35, and 36 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary and is
reproduced below with limitations at issue emphasized.
1. A system comprising:
a first data store configured to store a plurality of records,
wherein each of the plurality of records:
corresponds to an application for a mobile device;
and
includes metadata identifying actions available to a
mobile device user through use of the application,
wherein the identified actions are chosen from an
ontology;
a query module configured to process an application
recommendation request corresponding to a user device,
wherein the application recommendation request includes data
indicating a set of applications installed on the user device;
a set generation module configured to
identify, using the first data store, a set of
available actions associated with the set of applications
installed on the user device;
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to: (1) Appellant's Specification, filed
April 13, 2015 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed
March 15, 2017; (3) the Appeal Brief, filed December 7, 2017 ("Appeal
Br."); (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), mailed March 14, 2018; and (5)
the Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), filed May 11, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-005652
Application 14/684,823
select a set of unavailable actions, wherein the set
of unavailable actions is mutually exclusive with the set
of available actions; and
determine a consideration set of applications from
the first data store, wherein each application in the
consideration set implements at least one of the set of
unavailable actions;
a set processing module configured to select a chosen
subset of applications from the consideration set of
applications; and
a results generation module configured to respond to the
application recommendation request with an application
recommendation response, wherein the application
recommendation response includes identifying data for each
application in the chosen subset.
Appeal Br. 11.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Umezu
Mehta et al. ("Mehta")
Procopio et al. ("Procopio")
Stout et al. ("Stout")
N alluri et al. ("N alluri")
Bansal et al. ("Bansal")
US 2012/0150892 Al
US 2012/0291022 Al
US 2014/0344247 Al
US 2015/0100268 Al
US 2015/0220734 Al
US 2015/0370874 Al
REJECTIONS
June 14, 2012
Nov. 15, 2012
Nov. 20, 2014
Apr. 9, 2015
Aug. 6,2015
Dec. 24, 2015
Claims 1-16, 20, 21, and 28-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination ofUmezu and Procopio. Final
Act. 4--16.
3
Appeal2018-005652
Application 14/684,823
Claims 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination ofUmezu, Procopio, and Bansal. Final
Act. 17-19.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination ofUmezu, Procopio, Bansal, and Nalluri. Final
Act. 19.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination ofUmezu, Procopio, and Mehta. Final Act. 20.
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination ofUmezu, Procopio, and Nalluri. Final
Act. 21-22.
Claims 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination ofUmezu, Procopio, and Stout. Final
Act. 22-24.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See
MANUAL OF PATENTING EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 1205.02 (9th Ed., Rev.
08.2017 (Jan. 2018)); 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
ANALYSIS
Rejections Under § 103
Issue 1: Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Umezu and Procopio teaches or suggests "the application recommendation
request includes data indicating a set of applications installed on the user
device," as recited in claim 1.
4
Appeal2018-005652
Application 14/684,823
Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings with respect to
Procopio. Namely, Appellant argues "the Office Action did not cite any
portion of Procopio that teaches or suggests that the user's selection of a file
to be viewed (alleged application recommendation request) includes data
indicating a set of applications installed on the user device." Appeal Br. 7.
In response, the Examiner clarifies that the limitation at issue is taught by
Procopio at paragraphs 18, 20, and 21. See Ans. 4. Appellant argues
Procopio "merely discloses that a user may manually determine (in a time
consuming or inefficient manner) whether a local application will open a
file, or alternatively be provided a listing of web-based applications that a
user may select to open a file." Reply Br. 6.
We are unpersuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Procopio teaches a system that "determine[ s] an application that is locally
installed on the user's device to open the file." Procopio ,r 18; see Ans. 4.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Procopio teaches, "[ w ]hen
the user selects to view the contents of the file, the server 104 interprets the
selection as a request from the user to view a list of applications." Procopio
,r 20 ( emphasis omitted); see Ans. 4. Appellant's argument unpersuasively
requires the Examiner to treat Procopio' s paragraphs 18 and 20 as if they
were mutually exclusive, non-combinable teachings. This is not the law.
Rather than assessing obviousness based on a mutually exclusive analysis of
individual embodiments or teachings, the prior art should be viewed as a
combination of select teachings from different sources, and the use of those
teachings by one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (The conclusion of obviousness can be based
on the "interrelated teachings of multiple patents"). Furthermore, a "person
5
Appeal2018-005652
Application 14/684,823
of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton" and "in many cases ... will be able to fit the teachings ...
together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. The Examiner
combines these individual teachings from Procopio to find Procopio teaches
providing a list of applications that may be stored on either a server or
locally on a user device. Appellant's argument unpersuasively attacks these
teachings from Procopio individually when the Examiner's rejection is based
on the combination of Procopio's teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references") ( citation omitted).
Appellant's argument is, thus, unpersuasive because Appellant does not
address the Examiner's combination of teachings from Procopio, but instead
individually attacks the teachings of Procopio.
Issue 2: Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Umezu and Procopio teaches or suggests "identify[ing], using the first data
store, a set of available actions associated with the set of applications
installed on the user device," as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner finds Procopio' s discussion of "a list of applications,
where each application in the displayed list is capable of opening,
rendering, editing, and/or displaying the contents of the file" teaches or
suggests the second disputed limitation. Procopio ,r 20 ( emphasis added);
see Ans. 5. As discussed above with respect to issue 1, the Examiner also
finds Procopio teaches the applications may be "locally installed on the
user's device." Procopio ,r 18; see Ans. 5. The Examiner combines these
teachings to find Procopio teaches the second disputed limitation. Ans. 5.
6
Appeal2018-005652
Application 14/684,823
Appellant argues that "determining a single file type may be opened
by a local applications fails to disclose or suggest ... 'identify[ing], using
the first data store, a set of available actions associated with the set of
applications installed on the user device'" because Procopio "at most
discloses determining that a single action may be performed by using that
application itself." Appeal Br. 8.
We are unpersuaded because Appellant's argument does not address
the Examiner's finding that Procopio' s discussion of applications "capable
of opening, rendering, editing, and/or displaying" (i120; see Ans. 5) teaches
"a set of available actions associated with the set of applications" nor does
the argument address the Examiner's finding that Procopio teaches the
applications may be locally installed on the user device. Ans. 5; see ,r 18.
Issue 3: Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Umezu and Procopio teaches or suggests "select[ing] a set of unavailable
actions, wherein the set of unavailable actions is mutually exclusive with the
set of available actions," as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner finds Procopio teaches or suggests the third disputed
limitation. Namely, in Procopio, the Examiner finds:
The systems and methods disclosed herein identify a set of one
or more web-based applications (Apps not installed in user
device) that may be used to display the contents of the file to
the user and allow the user to interact with the file (unavailable
actions in the installed applications), without requiring the
downloading of the file and installation of local software on the
user device.
Ans. 8.
7
Appeal2018-005652
Application 14/684,823
Appellant first argues "Procopio does not teach or suggest the
combined used of the two techniques as asserted by the Office Action."
Appeal Br. 9. As discussed above with respect to the first and second
disputed limitations, we find this argument unpersuasive because the
Examiner correctly combines the teachings of Procopio. See Ans. 4--8.
Appellant next argues:
Procopio does not teach or suggest that the actions provided by
the web application are unavailable actions. For example, a
web application that can view and edit a text file can be
identified even if an application that can view and edit a text
file is locally installed. In Procopio, the identified actions
provided by the web applications are neither necessarily
unavailable actions nor mutually exclusive of the actions
already provided by the locally installed applications.
Appeal Br. 9.
We are unpersuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that in
clarifying the meaning of the above-disputed terms, Appellant's
Specification states that "'[a]t 808, control selects a set of unavailable
actions that are mutually exclusive with the available actions. In some
implementations, the unavailable actions may be all other actions that are
not available from the installed apps. "' Ans. 7 ( quoting Spec. ,r 119)
( emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds "Procopio discloses two
alternative techniques for interacting with a file. . .. Procopio discloses the
use of web applications to access files as an alternative to, rather than in
combination with, downloading files and then determining locally installed
applications to access them." Ans. 7.
8
Appeal2018-005652
Application 14/684,823
We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion. That is, we
agree that the Examiner's interpretation of "unavailable actions" and
"mutually exclusive" is reasonable in view of Appellant's Specification. See
Ans. 7. We also agree with the Examiner that Procopio' s discussion of
locally stored applications teaches available actions and Procopio' s
discussion of remotely stored (web) applications teaches unavailable actions
that are mutually exclusive with the set of available actions (see Ans. 7-8)
because absent an internet connection, only available actions, but not
unavailable actions could be selected. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that Procopio teaches the third disputed limitation.
For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1.
Independent claims 34 and 35 and dependent claims 2-33 are not argued
separately and so the rejections of these claims are sustained for the same
reasons given for independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
9