Ex Parte Klemm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13771678 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
13/771,678 02/20/2013 Reinhard P. Klemm 512132-US-NP/AVA054PA 1079
136582 7590 03/29/2017
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
PACK, CONRAD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
pto @ sspatlaw. com
pair_avaya@ firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REINHARD P. KLEMM,
DOREE DUNCANSELIGMANN,
and JOHN YOAKUM
Appeal 2016-006511
Application 13/771,67 s1
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOYCE CRAIG, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—15, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is AVAYA INC. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-006511
Application 13/771,678
INVENTION
Appellants’ application relates to a presentation pacing system and
method. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and
reads as follows:
1. A presentation pacing system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory
comprising one or more modules having computer readable
instructions, the one or more modules comprising;
a monitor module configured to instruct the processor to
monitor a time spent by a speaker on one or more slides while
presenting a presentation, the presentation comprising a plurality
of slides;
a compare module configured to instruct the processor to
compare the monitored time with a pre-recorded time associated
with the slides, wherein the prerecorded
time is determined by projecting a time spent on a
predetermined portion of the presentation during a rehearsal; and
a notification module configured to instruct the processor
to notify the speaker to change a pace of the presentation based
at least on the comparison.
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1—4, 8—10, and 12—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Fujiwara (US 6,715,881 B2; issued
Apr. 6, 2004) and Allen, Jr. et al. (US 2010/0309436 Al; published Dec. 9,
2010) (“Allen”).
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1—15 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-006511
Application 13/771,678
Claims 5—7 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fujiwara, Holsinger et al. (US
2013/0159460 Al; published Jun. 20, 2013) (“Holsinger”) and Kar,
Anandarup, Powerpoint- best practices by Guy Kawasaki, available at
http://anandarup.blogspot.com/2009/02/powerpoint-best-practice-by-
guy.html (dated Feb. 5, 2009; last accessed Mar. 21, 2017) (“Kar”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Fujiwara teaches or
suggests all of the recited limitations, except “determining the pre-recorded
time by projecting a time spent on a predetermined portion of the
presentation during a rehearsal recording,” for which the Examiner relied on
Allen. Final Act. 6—7 (citing Allen Abstract, Fig. 5, 4, 5, 26, 45—51, and
62).
Appellants contend the cited portions of Allen do not disclose the
limitation “a compare module configured to instruct the processor to
compare the monitored time with a pre-recorded time associated with the
slides, wherein the prerecorded time is determined by projecting a time spent
3
Appeal 2016-006511
Application 13/771,678
on a predetermined portion of the presentation during a rehearsal,”3 recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that “Allen fails to disclose the
determination of rehearsal time for the complete presentation (i.e., pre­
recorded time) using the time taken for rehearsing only a predetermined
portion of the complete presentation.” App. Br. 12.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred. We
agree with the Examiner that the plain language of claim 1 does not require
that the recited “pre-recorded time” be the rehearsal time for a complete
presentation. Ans. 5. We also agree with the Examiner that any use of
rehearsal timing data of a portion of a presentation, such as a slide or group
of slides, in connection with pacing notifications would fall within the scope
of claim 1 under a broad but reasonable interpretation.4 See Ans. 5.
Appellants did not file a Reply Brief and have not persuasively shown that
the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed limitation is overly broad,
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification.5
3 Appellants incorrectly state that claim 1 recites “comparing the monitored
time with a pre-recorded time associated with the one or more slides,
wherein the pre-recorded time is determined by projecting a time spent on a
predetermined portion of the presentation during a rehearsal.” App. Br. 10.
For clarity, we refer to the actual claim language.
4 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Cf. Spec. 1 81: “The foregoing discussion of
embodiments of the present invention has been presented for purposes of
illustration and description. The foregoing is not intended to limit the present
invention to the embodiments disclosed herein.”
5 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
4
Appeal 2016-006511
Application 13/771,678
Moreover, As the Examiner noted (Ans. 3), Appellants attack Allen
individually, even though the Examiner relies on the combination of
Fujiwara and Allen teaching or suggesting the disputed features. Final Act.
4—8; Ans. 3—5. In reMouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those having ordinary skill in the art.”). The Examiner relied on Allen only
as teaching or suggesting using a projection or estimate based on time spent
on a portion of a presentation as the pre-recorded time for the comparison.
Ans. 4 (citing Allen Fig. 5, 26, 45—51). Thus, Appellants arguments do
not address the rejection actually made by the Examiner with regard to the
disputed limitation.
Because Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
findings based on the combined teachings of Fujiwara and Allen, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination teaches or
suggests the limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
representative independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of grouped independent claims 8 and 15, which Appellants argue
are patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 13. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 2—7 and 9-14, for which Appellants make no additional arguments.
App. Br. 14.
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
5
Appeal 2016-006511
Application 13/771,678
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—15.
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