Ex Parte Lucero et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

12473140 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/473,140 0512712009 Andres Lucero
100809 7590 09/19/2016
Core Wireless Licensing Ltd
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 1300
Plano, TX 75024
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.
NC68737-US-PAT 8987
EXAMINER
FANG,PAKEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2016 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):
ipadmin-core@core-wireless.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDRES LUCERO and MARION BOBERG
Appeal2015-005937
Application 12/473,140
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005937
Application 12/473,140
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "[a]n approach ... for the presentation
of guidance information for capturing media content by a mobile device."
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
acquiring location information of a mobile device;
capturing a plurality of types of media content using the
mobile device, wherein a digital image, a video clip, and an audio
clip are each a different type of media content;
initiating presentation of guidance information for capturing
at least one of the types of media wherein the guidance
information is based, at least in part, on the location information
of the mobile device; and
providing the plurality of types of captured media content for
presentation in a virtual environment, the virtual environment
including at least one frame for each captured type of media
content.
1 Appellants identify Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.1. as the real party in
interest. (See App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal2015-005937
Application 12/473,140
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gulliksson (US 2008/0180550 Al; pub. July 31, 2008) and Samadani
et al. (US 6,906,643 B2; issued June 14, 2005). (See Final Act. 2-5.)
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that the rejections are in error for the following
reasons:
1. The combination fails to teach or suggest "capturing a plurality
of types of media content" and providing a "plurality of types of captured
media content" in a virtual environment that includes "at least one frame for
each captured type of media content." (See App. Br. 6-7.)
2. The combination is faulty because: "one skilled in the art
would not be motivated to combine Gulliksson with Samadani" (App. Br. 8);
"the Examiner has not provided any logical basis to suggest how Gulliksson
and Samadani can be combined to disclose or teach each and every feature
of Appellants' claimed invention" (id. at 10); "[t]he argued combination ...
is not possible because it is illogical" (id.); "Gulliksson teaches away from
using multiple types of media content" (id. at 11 ); and the Examiner has
engaged in "impermissible hindsight" (id.).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Gulliksson teaches all limitations of claim 1,
except that "Gulliksson doesn't explicitly teach capturing a plurality of types
of media content using the mobile device; wherein a digital image, a video
clip, and an audio clip are each a different type of media content." (Final
3
Appeal2015-005937
Application 12/473,140
Act. 3.) The Examiner further found, however, that "Samadani discloses
capturing a plurality of types of media content using the mobile device;
wherein a digital image, a video clip, and an audio clip are each a different
type of media content" and that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the teaching of Gulliksson with
having a capturing device to capture different multimedia e.g. a
digital image, a video clip, and/or an audio clip of Samadani to
allow the system to stitch different types of multimedia, thus,
improving the adaptability and user friendliness of the image
system.
(Id. at 3--4.)
Appellants argue that the "claimed invention includes providing
multiple types of media content in a virtual environment" and that
"Gulliksson discloses capturing only one type of media content: a picture."
(App. Br. 7.) This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies
on Samadani, not Gulliksson, for the use of different types of media. See In
re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.").
Appellants also attack the combination as without "any logical basis"
and "not possible because it is illogical." (App. Br. 10.) We do not agree.
As the Examiner found, Gulliksson teaches the claimed system except that it
assembles one type of media captured by a camera, and Samadani teaches
that a camera device can capture multiple types of media. (See Final Act. 3-
4, 6-8.) We agree with the Examiner that it would have been logical, and
obvious, to implement a system like Gulliksson but with multiple types of
4
Appeal2015-005937
Application 12/473,140
media content, as in Samadani. For example, it would have been obvious to
capture a video clip (one type of media) and a corresponding sound clip (a
second type of media) and to present them together.
Appellants also argue that Gulliksson "teaches away" and that the
Examiner has engaged in "impermissible hindsight." (App. Br. 11.) We
again do not agree. The combination is not a result of improper hindsight
because it is supported by an articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning, as explained above, and merely teaching a different way is not
"teaching away." See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[M]ere disclosure of
alternative designs does not teach away.").
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-20 are 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
5