Ex Parte McGuire et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2018

14063030 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2018)

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.
14/063,030 10/25/2013 Kenneth Stephen McGuire 12096C 3560
27752 7590 01/22/2018
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
MASINICK, MICHAEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2125
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2018 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):
centraldocket. im @ pg. com
pair_pg @ firsttofile. com
mayer.jk @ pg. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH STEPHEN McGUIRE, ERIK JOHN HASENOEHRL,
WILLIAM PAUL MAHONEY III, COREY MICHAEL BISCHOFF,
HUIQING Y. STANLEY, MARK JOHN STEINHARDT, and
DANA PAUL GRUENBACHER
Appeal 2017-009556
Application 14/063,03 01
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify The Proctor & Gamble Company as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-009556
Application 14/063,030
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed “to sensing
and adjusting features of an environment and specifically to utilizing a
computing device to determine features of a first environment for utilization
in a second environment.” Spec. 1:4—6. According to the Specification,
example features of a first environment to be replicated in a second
environment may include lighting, sound, temperature, or scent. Spec. 1:10—
13. In a disclosed embodiment, a user computing device may be used to
capture the desired feature (e.g., lighting) of a first (i.e., source)
environment. Spec. 3:34-4:8. The user device may capture the appropriate
characteristics of the source environment and determine a source output.
Spec. 4:11—17. The determined information may be used to control a target
device in a second (i.e., target) environment to duplicate the desired feature.
Spec. 4:18-29.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'.
1. A method for sensing and adjusting features of an
environment comprising:
receiving, by a sensor device that is coupled to a user
computing device, an ambiance feature of a source environment;
determining, by the user computing device and from the
ambiance feature, a source output provided by a source device
in the source environment',
determining an ambiance capability for a target
environment;
determining, based on the ambiance capability and the
source output, a target output for a target device in the target
environment', and
2
Appeal 2017-009556
Application 14/063,030
communicating with the target device to model the
ambiance feature from the source environment into the target
environment by altering the target output provided by the target
device.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Diederiks et al. (US 2009/0284187 Al; Nov. 19, 2009)
(“Diederiks”). Final Act. 2—11.
ANALYSIS2
Appellants contend Diederiks fails to disclose determining a source
output provided by a source device in the source environment, as claimed
and, further, cannot disclose using the determined source output to
determine an output for a target device. Br. 3. Additionally, Appellants
assert “[t]he general lighting conditions observed in the source environment
of the reference are not necessarily equivalent to source outputs as other
factors in the environment, natural lighting, surface colors, finish, and
albedo may impact the observed light.” Br. 3^4.
Diederiks is generally directed to controlling a light system with a
light condition recorder. Diederiks 11. As identified by the Examiner,
Diederiks discloses a light condition recorder system to record a lighting
environment (i.e., a first, or source, environment) and simulate the recorded
light characteristics in a second (i.e., target) environment. See Final Act. 2—
3 (citing Diederiks 118, Fig. 1); see also Ans. 18 (referring to Diederiks
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
November 14, 2016 (“Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 31, 2017
(“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed June 14, 2016 (“Final Act.”),
from which this Appeal is taken.
3
Appeal 2017-009556
Application 14/063,030
17). Diederiks describes the lighting environment (i.e., the source
environment) may comprise artificial and/or natural lighting or, in an indoor
setting, one or more lamps (i.e., source devices) of single or mixed types
(e.g., fluorescent and incandescent). Diederiks 119.
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the
Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in light of the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We are mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the claim language does not require
the determination of a source output by a source device in the environment
to account for various environmental factors (e.g., surface colors, finish, and
albedo). See e.g., claim 1. The Examiner construes “a source output
provided by a source device in the source environment” to mean “any sensor
recording of a device generated ambient condition.” Ans. 18. In other
words, the output from a device (e.g., a lamp) may be determined from a
sensor (i.e., a user computing device) recording the feature (e.g., lighting).
We agree with the Examiner that Diederiks discloses this capability. See
Diederiks 17 (describing “a light condition recording system including
means for recording a lighting environment”); see also Ans. 18. Appellants
do not rebut persuasively the Examiner’s findings.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
4
Appeal 2017-009556
Application 14/063,030
independent claims 8 and 15, which recite similar limitations and were not
argued separately. Further, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—
7, 9-14, and 16—20, which depend therefrom and were not argued
separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting 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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f)(2016).
AFFIRMED
5