Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

13333148 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/333,148 12/21/2011
15093 7590 07/01/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric Liu
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.
141995 (899485) 7249
EXAMINER
WOOD, WILLIAM C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcomins t@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC LIU, STEFAN J. MARTI, and
SEUNG WOOK KIM
Appeal2014-009895
Application 13/333,148
Technology Center 2100
Before JON M. JURGOV AN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-15, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. as the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Dec. 21, 2011 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed Aug. 28, 2013 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
Appeal2014-009895
Application 13/333,148
CLAIMS
The claims are directed to the processing of rendering data by an
operating system to identify a contextually relevant media object. (Spec.
Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computing device comprising:
a processor to:
execute an application associated with an operating system
to transmit rendering data from the application to the operating
system, the rendering data identifying visual objects for display
by the operating system;
process, by the operating system, the rendering data
transmitted from the application to the operating system to
identify a media object contextually relevant to the rendering
data wherein contextual relevance indicates a measurement of
relatedness between data within the rendering data and the
identified media object; and
output, by the operating system, the rendering data and the
identified media object.
(App. Br. - Claims App'x (i).)
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Obrador (US 7,131,059 B2; Oct. 31, 2006) and Zheng et al. (US
2013/0033414 Al; Feb. 7, 2013) ("Zheng"). (Final Act. 3-9.)
filed Jan. 27, 2014 ("App. Br."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed May
22, 2014 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2014-009895
Application 13/333,148
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Obrador, Zheng, and Xu et al. (US 8, 146,061 B2; Mar. 27, 2012) ("Xu").
(Final Act. 9-10.)
Claims 4, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Obrador, Zheng, and Essafi et al. (US 2003/0105739 Al; June 5, 2003)
("Essafi''). (Final Act. 10-12.)
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Obrador, Zheng, and Essafi. (Final Act. 12-14.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by finding Obrador discloses the
claimed limitation "to transmit rendering data from the application to the
operating system." (App. Br. 10-11.) Specifically, Appellants argue
Obrador's digital content (e.g., media objects) is distinct from the claimed
"rendering data," and that Obrador transmits such digital content to the user,
not to the operating system. (Id.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As the Examiner
notes, the Specification refers to "rendering data" as including "display
commands and display data for display on an output device." (Ans. 14
citing Spec. i-f 14.) The Specification further states rendering data is used by
a module to identify a contextually relevant media object (Ans. 14--15 citing
Spec. i-f 23.) The Examiner notes Obrador defines "digital content" as
including that which "may be presented individually or combined in a wide
variety of different forms, including documents, presentations, music, still
photographs, commercial videos, home movies, and meta data describing
3
Appeal2014-009895
Application 13/333,148
one or more associated digital content files." (Ans. 15, citing Obrador 1 :24-
29 .) The Examiner also notes that Obrador defines "media object" as
referring "broadly to any form of digital content, including text, audio,
graphics, animated graphics or full-motion video." (Ans. 15, citing Obrador
4:38--45.)
On the basis of these disclosures, the Examiner rightly concludes that
the claimed "rendering data" is not distinguishable from Obrador's digital
content and media object. (Ans. 15.) Furthermore, the Examiner finds
Obrador' s metadata performs a similar function to what is claimed by
identifying a media object contextually relevant to the rendering data. We
agree with the Examiner's findings.
Appellants further argue Obrador' s media manager transmits digital
content (e.g., media objects) to the user, and not to the operating system, and
that Obrador does not mention an operating system. (App. Br. 11.) The
Examiner explains that the operating system described in the Specification
comprises a general-purpose operating system running on a general-purpose
processor, and that Obrador similarly describes a general-purpose computer
system. (Ans. 15-16, citing Obrador Fig. 2, 6:28-58.) The Examiner states
a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that an operating system is
an integral part of a computer system, and would by necessity be involved in
invoking applications, displaying media objects to users, etc. The Examiner
concludes the functions noted by Appellants are inherent in Obrador. The
Examiner also notes that Zheng explicitly teaches the use of operating
systems in the claimed context, and that it is improper to attack the
references individually in an obviousness rejection based on a combination
4
Appeal2014-009895
Application 13/333,148
of references. (Ans. 16, citing Jn re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); Jn
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).)
The Examiner's findings are reasonable, and we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs in the rejection. We also note that Appellants do not explain
how digital content could be transmitted to a user, as described in Obrador,
without use of an operating system in the context of the combined
references. Moreover, Obrador mentions its computer includes BIOS, which
a person of ordinary skill would understand functions to facilitate loading of
the computer's operating system. (Obrador 6:28-38.)
Appellants also assert the Examiner errs by relying on Obrador to
obviate the claimed limitation "process, by the operating system, the
rendering data transmitted from the application to the operating system to
identify a media object contextually relevant to the rendering data wherein
contextual relevance indicates a measurement of relatedness between data
within the rendering data and the identified media object." (App. Br. 12-
13.) Specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner errs by finding
Obrador' s relevance criterion for selecting a media object is equivalent to
the claimed "identify a media object contextually relevant to the rendering
data." (Id.) The Examiner responds that the claimed "rendering data" is
indistinguishable from Obrador' s digital content and media object for the
reasons previously discussed. (Id.) The Examiner further explains that
Obrador' s metadata describes one or more associated files that may be
included as part of the digital content, and that this metadata identifies a
media object contextually relevant to the rendering data as claimed through
the use of data structures serving as the claimed relevance criteria. (Ans. 17
citing Obrador 2:59---62.) We agree with the Examiner's findings.
5
Appeal2014-009895
Application 13/333,148
Appellants also argue Obrador's selected media file has multiple
media objects, not a singular media object contextually relevant to rendering
data. (App. Br. 12.) However, claim 1 is not limited in scope to a single
media object because the indefinite article "a" used to introduce a feature in
an open-ended claim using the "comprising" transition usually carries the
meaning "one or more." KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d
1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Intern., Inc.,
423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner
errs.
Appellants further argue Zheng does not disclose processing rendering
data to identify a media object contextually relevant to the rendering data, as
claimed, but instead is focused on the operating system displaying the media
objects, not identifying them. (App. Br. 13.) We find no place in the record
where the Examiner relies on Zheng to teach this feature, and Appellants
identify none. Thus, we are not persuaded of error.
Appellants argue the Examiner provided no clear explanation of why
Zheng's teaching of an operating system that abstracts underlying
functionality of a computing device would motivate one of ordinary skill to
produce the claimed invention, and how abstraction would provide an
advantage or benefit. (App. Br. 13-14.) The Examiner responds that
Appellants' arguments are conclusory and that motivation to combine is
articulated in Zheng. (Ans. 17-18, citing Zheng i-f 27.)
We note that the Examiner merely cites Zheng to teach an operating
system which is not explicitly mentioned in Obrador but which the person of
ordinary skill would understand must be present. (Final Act. 4.) We also
note it is apparent to us there are many advantages and benefits to an
6
Appeal2014-009895
Application 13/333,148
operating system that abstracts underlying functionality of the computing
device. For example, a person of ordinary skill would have understood from
reading the reference that abstraction of computing device functionality
simplifies application development, allows software modules to be reused
for different applications, and allows them to be run in different operating
environments. Accordingly, there were apparent reasons for a person of
ordinary skill to combine the references. See KSR Int 'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites "wherein the rendering data includes a display
command and display data provided from the application to the operating
system." (App. Br. - Claims App'x (i).) Appellants argue the Examiner
relies on Zheng to teach this feature. (App. Br. 14--15, citing Zheng i-f 27.)
Appellants contend that Zheng merely discloses displaying data, not also
providing the display command. (Id.)
The Examiner states that although Zheng does not explicitly disclose a
display command, it is inherent in Zheng that in order to display data to a
user, some form of command or alert would have to exist in order for the
application to provide data to the operating system and to notify the
operating system to display the data. (Ans. 18, citing Zheng i-f 27.) We
agree. Furthermore, we note that well-known markup languages, such as
HTML, include instructions in metadata to indicate where and how to
display text and images. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this
argument.
7
Appeal2014-009895
Application 13/333,148
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites "receive, by an operating system rendering data
provided from an application executing within the operating system," and
"process, by the operating system, the rendering data received from the
application to identify a media object contextually relevant to the rendering
data, wherein the contextual relevance indicates a measurement of
relatedness between data within the rendering data and the identified media
object." Appellants argue these features distinguish over Obrador and Zheng
for the reasons stated with respect to claim I. (App. Br. 15-16.) For the
stated reasons, we do not find this argument persuasive.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites the limitation "detect a void space adjacent to the
rendering data, the void space including the absence of the rendering data."
Appellants argue Schlegel fails to disclose this feature. (App. Br. 19-20
citing Schlegel i-f 93, emphasis omitted) Specifically, Appellants argue
Schlegel discloses displaying objects in empty space, but does not detect
void space on a display. (Id.) According to Appellants, in order to detect
void space adjacent to rendering data, the rendering data needs to be
displayed prior to detecting void space. (Id.)
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. The Examiner notes that
Schlegel teaches determining the location of blank or usable space to display
an object based on the existence of rendering data. (Ans. 19 citing Schlegel
i-fi-193, 113, Fig. 7.) Specifically, the Examiner notes Schlegel teaches
determining the location of blank or usable space to display a pop-up menu
adjacent to previously-existing input focus. Reviewing the cited parts of
Schlegel, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in the rejection.
8
Appeal2014-009895
Application 13/333,148
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites "receiving, by the operating system, rendering data
provided by an application," "wherein the rendering data is received as part
of a display command from the application," and "processing the rendering
data to identify a media object contextually relevant to the rendering data,
wherein the contextual relevance indicates a measurement of relatedness
between data within the rendering data and the identified media object."
Appellants contend these features distinguish over Obrador and Zheng for
the reasons stated with respect to claims 1, 2, and 7. (App. Br. 16.) For the
stated reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Remaining Claims
Appellants argue claims 3-6, 10, 11, 13, and 15 using the same
arguments previously discussed. We are not persuaded of Examiner error
for the reasons stated.
No separate arguments are presented for claims 8, 12, and 14, which
fall with the claims from which they depend for the reasons explained. 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
CONCLUSION
An obviousness rejection under§ 103(a) requires that "there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). On this record, we find the Examiner's
reasoning and underpinning adequate to support the conclusion of
obviousness.
9
Appeal2014-009895
Application 13/333,148
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
10