Ex Parte Lawson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13248860 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/248,860 09/29/2011
22879 7590 09/21/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard James Lawson
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.
82851233 2875
EXAMINER
GILLESPIE, NICOLE K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD JAMES LAWSON, ERIC FREEDMAN,
MARGUERITE LETULLE, RANJIT SIDHU, CHANDAR KUMAR
ODDIRAJU, LEEF ASTENAU, and BRIAN RO MANKO
Appeal2014-009153
Application 13/248,860
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LARRY J. HUME, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009153
Application 13/248,860
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added to
the disputed portion of the claim, reads as follows:
1. A device comprising:
a display component to display a user interface; and
a controller to:
identify display parameters for layers of the user
interface based on contextual information associated with an
environment of the device, the contextual information
comprising at least one of a current date and a current time;
determine which of the layers are to be visible on the user
interface based on the display parameters; and
render the user interface on the display component to
include visible layers based on corresponding display
parameters of the visible layers.
The Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-12 and 15-19 as being anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Kerr et al. (US 2011/0109538 Al; published
May 12, 2011 ). Final Act. 3-9; Ans. 2-7.
(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 13 and 14 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kerr and
Lawther et al. (US 2011/0090322 Al; published Apr. 21, 2011). Final Act.
9-10; Ans. 8-9.
(3) The Examiner rejected dependent claim 20 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kerr and Rhoads et al.
2
Appeal2014-009153
Application 13/248,860
(US 2011/0098056 Al; published Apr. 28, 2011). Final Act. 10-11;
Ans. 9-10.
Principal Issue on Appeal1
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-12)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2---6), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1-12 and 15-19 as being
anticipated by Kerr; and/or (ii) claims 13, 14, and 20 as being obvious over
the base Kerr reference combined with either of the secondary references
applied because Kerr fails to disclose, whether inherently or explicitly,
"contextual information" including "at least one of a current date and a
current time," as recited in representative independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 3-11;
Ans. 2-10) in light of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App.
Br. 6-11) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2---6) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' conclusions. With regard to representative
1 Independent claims 1, 8, and 18 all contain the same disputed limitation
and are not separately argued by Appellants, and Appellants primarily
present arguments as to claim 1 (App. Br. 6-1 O; Reply Br. 2---6).
Furthermore, Appellants do not present separate arguments regarding the
patentability of dependent claims 13, 14, and 20, other than to assert that
neither Lawther nor Rhoads teach or suggest the features of claims 8 and 18,
respectively, instead relying upon their dependency on independent claims
13, 14, and 20 (App. Br. 10-11). We, therefore, select claim 1 to be
representative of the group of claims 1-12 and 15-19 rejected for
anticipation by Kerr, and decide the appeal of claims 13, 14, and 20 on the
same basis as representative claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-009153
Application 13/248,860
independent claim 1, we adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-3) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 11-14) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief.
We concur with the findings and legal conclusions reached by the Examiner,
and highlight and emphasize certain findings with regard to the base
reference Kerr.
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-3) that Kerr
discloses the disputed limitations. During examination, claims are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and the language should be read in light of the specification as
it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, "contextual information" is information "associated with an
environment" where the device is located, and includes at least a current date
or a current time, as set forth in claim 1. Under this definition, the base
reference Kerr's disclosure in paragraph 46 of can be properly considered to
be contextual information because it is associated with the environment
(e.g., weather information), and the local weather information necessarily
concerns weather information at a certain local location, as well as the time
the weather is occurring (e.g., the present, past, or future). See Kerr i-f 46.
Current local news information, which could be the local weather of
the environment the device is in, necessarily includes the current time or
date at which the weather is occurring. In addition, weather information
such as the phase of the moon, location of the tide, and/ or position of the sun
4
Appeal2014-009153
Application 13/248,860
provide indications as to at least one of a time and/ or date of the weather
(i.e., contextual) information being provided.
Appellants' contention (App. Br. 6) that Kerr's local news
information is not arranged as required by claim 1 is not persuasive in light
of Kerr's disclosure in paragraph 46. Paragraph 46 of Kerr discloses that (i)
"local weather information" "providing the current location of the device;"
and (ii) "local news information determined from current time and location
of the device" be used to determine layer movement, where the "properties
of the device environment can be determined from any suitable source in
response to receiving the device location" (Kerr, i-f 46).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as claims 2-12 and 15-19 grouped therewith, as being
anticipated by Kerr. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 13,
14, and 20 as being obvious over the combination of Kerr and various other
prior art references for the reasons provided as to claims 8 and 18 from
which these claims ultimately depend, and because Appellants make the
same unpersuasive argument for claims 13, 14, and 20 as presented for
claims 8 and 18 already discussed (for the reasons provided as to
representative claim 1). See App. Br. 10-11.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-12 and 15-19 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kerr.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 13 and 14 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kerr and
Lawther.
5
Appeal2014-009153
Application 13/248,860
(3) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kerr and
Rhoads.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
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