Ex Parte Klemm et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201713771678 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation