Ex Parte Lejeune et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2016

13073807 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2016)

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.
SONY-41000 8576
EXAMINER
MCCALLUM, LATRESA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/073,807 03/28/2011
28960 7590 12/05/2016
HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP
162 N WOLFE ROAD
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086
Stephane Lejeune
12/05/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHANE LEJEUNE and GRAHAM CLIFT
Appeal 2015-007663
Application 13/073,807
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final
rejection of claims 1—28, which are all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application “relates to recompositing a remote user interface in
real-time” (Spec. 1:4—5) in order to “allow devices to operate each other and
provide the user with a user interface that is configured appropriately for a
Appeal 2015-007663
Application 13/073,807
device being used to control another device” (Spec. 2:2—3). Claims 1,11,
16, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A method of recomposing a remote user interface in real­
time comprising:
a. determining network information;
b. modifying remote user interface data into modified
remote user interface data based on the network information
about the network including an available data rate of the network;
c. sending the modified remote user interface data to a
rendering device; and
d. rendering the modified remote user interface data
on the rendering device.
References and Rejections
Claims 1—5, 7—11, 13—15, 21—24, and 26—28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Karaoguz (US 2004/0133701 Al;
July 8, 2004). Final Act. 9-21.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Karaoguz and Han (US 2011/0093525 Al; Apr. 21,
2011). Final Act. 21-22.
Claims 6 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Karaoguz and Chou (US 2010/0106849 Al; Apr. 29,
2010). Final Act. 22-23.
Claims 16—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Garcia (US 2009/0150520 Al; June 11, 2009) and
Karaoguz. Final Act. 23.
2
Appeal 2015-007663
Application 13/073,807
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own,
and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
A. Independent Claim 1
Appellants argue “independent Claim 1 is allowable over the
teachings of Karaoguz,” because “Karaoguz does not teach modifying
remote user interface data into modified remote user interface data based on
the network information about the network including an available data rate
of the network.” App. Br. 7. Particularly, Appellants contend “Paragraphs
8, 10, 11 and 44 of Karaoguz are focused on the device capabilities
(specifically, destination device capabilities or a sent device profile),” and
“device capabilities are completely different from network data rates” as
required by the claim. App. Br. 5.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. First, we note Appellants’
argument is unpersuasive for not being responsive to the Examiner’s
rejection. In the Non-Final Action, the Examiner cites to Karaoguz Figure 8
and paragraph 77 for disclosing network information including an available
data rate of the network. See Final Act. 10. Appellants, in the Appeal Brief,
do not refer to these cited portions of the reference. See App. Br. 5—7.1
1 In the Reply Brief, Appellants present new arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s citation of Karaoguz Fig. 8 and Paragraph 77. See Reply Br. 5—
7. Appellants’ Reply Brief argument is waived, however, because it was not
presented in the opening brief and no showing of good cause was made to
explain why the late argument should be considered by the Board. See
Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief that
3
Appeal 2015-007663
Application 13/073,807
Second, we agree with the Examiner that Karaoguz discloses the
disputed limitations. During examination, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad.
ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants’
Specification does not provide a limiting definition of the claim recitation
“an available data rate of the network,” but does generally describe
“increasing or decreasing an amount of data of the remote user interface
data” (Spec. 4:13—15) based on the “available data rate of the network”
(Spec. 7:8—9). See also Spec. 4:12—13; 7:1—15; 9:11—12. Thus, we find
reasonable the Examiner’s determination that Karaoguz describes
determining an available data rate of the network (e.g., express delivery
time, normal delivery time, and overnight delivery time), each network data
rate having a different recording rate. See Final Act. 10; Karaoguz Fig. 8.
We also agree with the Examiner that Karaoguz discloses modifying the
remote user interface data based on such available data rate of the network,
because Karaoguz describes adapting digital parameters of media content in
a channel associated with the end-user device based on the information in a
device capability profile, to generate adapted media content; the device
capability profile also includes the determined available network data rate.
See Karaoguz || 45, 49; Final Act. 10.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 encompasses
the disclosure of Karaoguz. Appellants advance no additional substantive
arguments for the anticipation rejection of claims 2—4, 8—11, 13, 15, 21—23,
could have been raised in the opening brief is waived); see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
4
Appeal 2015-007663
Application 13/073,807
27, and 28, or the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 6, 12, and 25.
See App. Br. 7—9. Appellants do not address the rejection of claims 5, 7, 14,
24, and 26. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—
15 and 21—28.
B. Independent Claim 16
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding claim 16 is obvious in
view of Garcia and Karaoguz, because “Garcia, Karaoguz and their
combination do not teach a determining module for determining network
information about the network including an available data rate of the
network.” App. Br. 12.2
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. As discussed above, we
agree with the Examiner that Karaoguz determines network information,
including an available data rate of the network, as claimed. We also agree
with the Examiner that Garcia in view of Karaoguz teaches the determining
and communicating modules, as claimed. See Final Act. 5—6, 24—25; see
also Garcia Fig. 4; || 8, 10, 11, 36, 37. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16, and dependent claims 17—20
which are not separately argued. See App. Br. 12.
2 We note Appellants provide additional discussion of Garcia; however,
Appellants do not present such discussion as an argument with respect to
specific claim limitations. See, e.g., App. Br. 10-11; cf. In re Baxter
TravenolLabs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of
this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant,
looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”); Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“[T]he Board will not, as a
general matter, unilaterally review . . . uncontested aspects of the
rejection.”).
5
Appeal 2015-007663
Application 13/073,807
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—28 is affirmed.
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