Ex Parte Humpleman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 201613419380 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/419,380 99435 7590 Sherman IP LLP 1519 26th Street FILING DATE 03/13/2012 06/23/2016 Santa Monica, CA 90404 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Richard James Humpleman 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. SAM1-P.el4.K 5539 EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2171 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2016 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): nielsen@sziplaw.com patent@shermanip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD JAMES HUMPLEMAN, G. KEVIN HARMS, MICHAEL S. DEACON, and ROBERT M. WOLFF Appeal2014-005330 Application 13/419,380 Technology Center 2100 Before THU A. DANG, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 9-14 and 19- 33, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2014-005330 Application 13/419,380 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed invention generally relates to providing an interface to access devices currently connected to a home network. (Spec. 1:9-10.) Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative: 9. A method for controlling one or more devices connected to a network comprising: performing a discovery process to identify the one or more devices; receiving information related to control functions and current status of a selected device among the one or more devices, the information used for operating the selected device; displaying a page-based on the information related to control functions and current status of the selected device; and sending a command to the selected device using the displayed page for operating the selected device. Rejection Claims 9-14 and 19-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Eyer et al. (US 5,982,445; issued Nov. 9, 1999). (Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2-5.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 7-13; Reply Br. 7-15). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and set forth in the Answer (see Ans. 2-7). We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. 2 Appeal2014-005330 Application 13/419,380 Appellants argue claims 9-14 and 19-33 as a group. (See App. Br. 8- 13.) We select claim 9 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(i)(iv). Appellants argue Eyer does not disclose performing a discovery process to identifY the one or more devices, as recited in claim 9. (App. Br. 10-11.) According to Appellants: Eyer simply discloses that " when the appliances are connected to the decoder" then may they be controlled (Eyer, col. 12, lines 22). Thus, Eyer does not discover whether the device is connected or not to the network. Eyer's teachings are similar to pressing a button on a remote control for a DVR whether a DVR is plugged in and connected or not. If a device is connected to the decoder 180, then it may be controlled, if not the system simply could not be able to do anything when the selections for controlling a non-connected device are made. It is clear that in Eyer, the system does not perform discovery or identify the appliances connected to the decoder. Moreover, detection requires finding out whether a device is connected or not (i.e., two-way communication). Eyer simply does not teach that detection of devices is performed. (App. Br. 10-11.) The Examiner finds Eyer discloses a menu of individual household appliances in the form of an "HTML/HTVP" web page that contains a listing of the household appliances and corresponding controls. (Final Act. 2 (citing Eyer 12:20-13:42, Fig. 5).) The Examiner finds the HTML/HTVP web page is created based on an HTML/HTVP file, and that this means the HTML/HTVP file must identify the plurality of devices (e.g., TV, home system) in order to create the HTML/HTVP web page on the screen with controls of various devices. (Final Act. 2.) We agree with these findings of the Examiner. 3 Appeal2014-005330 Application 13/419,380 Appellants do not present persuasive evidence or argument that Eyer's menu of controls for devices could be created based on anything other than an entity performing a discovery process to identify the one or more devices that can be controlled. We note there is no disclosure in Eyer that a control menu is presented for appliances that are not connected to the controller and available to be controlled. Indeed, Eyer expressly discloses that the HTML/HTVP concept used to control the television display "may be extended to allow the viewer to control household appliances other than a television when the appliances are linked to the decoder." (Eyer 12:20-22 (emphasis added).) Although Appellants contend Eyer discloses that a device that is not connected to Eyer's decoder simply will not respond to control signals sent by the decoder (see App. Br. 10), such contention is merely speculative and unsupported by objective evidence.2 Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Eyer discloses performing a discovery process to identifY the one or more devices, as recited in claim 9. Appellants also contend Eyer does not teach or suggest receiving information related to control functions and current status of a selected device, as recited in claim 9. (App. Br. 11-12.) Appellants argue Eyer's HTVP commands are received from HTML/HTVP data function 110 of the transmitting side 100 of the television transmission system, "HTVP 2 Appellants do not cite persuasive evidence in support, and rely on mere attorney arguments. Although attorney arguments are helpful when directing us to evidence in the record, the arguments themselves do not constitute evidence. Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L 'Orea!, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). 4 Appeal2014-005330 Application 13/419,380 functions provide one-way commands and do not receive control functions and current status from devices connected to the decoder," receiving current status from devices requires obtaining feedback, and in Eyer the system simply acts as a remote control where information related to control functions and current status is not received from a device. (App. Br. 11-12.) According to Appellants, "if the security system shown in FIG. 5 of Eyer is selected to ON, it is assumed the connected device is ON," but if a user were to tum off the security system, "the system in Eyer would not update the GUI as no provisions in the disclosure of Eyer provide for receiving current status information from the connected device." (App. Br. 12.) Although the cited portions of Eyer do not expressly address whether the "ON" or "OFF" links for various devices indicate whether the device is currently "ON" or "OFF," Eyer's HTML/HTVP display in Figure 5 shows controls for an "AUDIO CENTER," and Eyer discloses "a surround sound level is represented by a bar 552" (Eyer 13:14--15; see Final Act. 2-3). Bar 552 indicates a current status of the audio device, and this information must be received in order to be displayed. We note claim 9 does not specify a source of the information to be received. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Eyer discloses receiving information related to control functions and current status of a selected device, as recited in claim 9. Appellants argue Eyer cannot disclose displaying a page-based on the information related to control functions of the selected device, and sending a command to the selected device using the displayed page for operating the selected device, as recited in claim 9, because Eyer does not receive the HTVP commands or functions from the devices connected to the decoder 5 Appeal2014-005330 Application 13/419,380 180. Similar to the receiving step discussed above, the displaying and sending steps recited in claim 9 do not recite a source of the information, and, as discussed above, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding Eyer discloses the receiving step. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Eyer's displayed menu of controls is based on the information related to control functions and current status, and that Eyer discloses sending commands using the displayed menu. (Final Act. 2-3; Eyer Abstract, 12:20-13:42, 5:26-55, Figs. 2, 5.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Eyer discloses displaying a page- based on the information related to control functions of the selected device, and sending a command to the selected device using the displayed page for operating the selected device, as recited in claim 9. For the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Eyer. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 9, and, for the same reasons, the rejection of claims 10-14 and 19-33, which are not argued separately with particularity. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 9-14 and 19-33. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation