Ex Parte Ng et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201613029168 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/029,168 02/17/2011 Hock M. Ng 80878 l-US-NP 1224 46363 7590 12/30/2016 Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. 12 Christopher Way Suite 105 Eatontown, NJ 07724 EXAMINER DURKIN, JAMES T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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): docketing @ trbklaw .com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HOCK M. NG, EDWARD L. SUTTER, and RICHARD M. ABBOT Appeal 2015-007249 Application 13/029,168 Technology Center 2100 Before: BRUCE R. WINSOR, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1 and 10-29. Claims 2—9 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2015-007249 Application 13/029,168 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for providing an immersive meeting experience for remote meeting participants. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus, comprising: a processor and a memory communicatively connected to the processor, the processor configured to: present, at a user device, an area configuration based on a two-dimensional representation of a physical area configured for use in hosting a meeting, wherein the physical area includes a local meeting participant, wherein the physical area further includes a device configured for being accessed remotely and a set of cameras, wherein the area configuration includes a first icon associated with a representation of the local meeting participant, a second icon associated with a representation of the device or a view available from the device, and a third icon associated with the set of cameras; detect, at the user device, selection of the third icon associated with the set of cameras; and propagate, from the user device based on selection of the third icon, a message configured for requesting access to an area configuration based on a three- dimensional representation of the physical area. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 10-23, and 25—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Badt (U.S. 2004/0189701 Al; published Sept. 30, 2004) and Suzuki (U.S. 2003/0206232 Al; published Nov. 6, 2003). Final Act. (mailed Jan. 21, 2015) 4—15. 2 Appeal 2015-007249 Application 13/029,168 Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Badt, Suzuki, and Fang (U.S. 2008/0063389 Al; published Mar. 13, 2008). Final Act. 15-16. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Badt, Suzuki, and Huitema (U.S. 2012/0154510 Al; published June 21, 2012). Final Act. 17-18. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Badt, Suzuki, and Stedman (U.S. 2012/0098921 Al; published Apr. 26, 2012). Final Act. 19-20. ANALYSIS Claim 1 Appellants argue error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 because Suzuki fails to disclose an “area configuration based on a three-dimensional representation of the physical area.” App. Br. 16—17. The Examiner finds that although Suzuki’s “map window” (depicted in Fig. 4 and described at | 84) is two-dimensional, it is “based on a three- dimensional representation of the physical area because it allows for access to three-dimensional video feed 62 and further because the layout is a representation of a three-dimensional environment.” Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds that “Badt depicts representations of areas in three dimensions.” Id. (citing Badt Fig. 4). The Examiner also reasons that Assuming arguendo that neither Badt nor Suzuki depict a three-dimensional representation of the physical area and further assuming arguendo that propagating a message requesting access to an area configuration based on a three-dimensional representation of the physical area requires the representation of the area configuration be depicted in three dimensions, it would be an obvious variant to depict an area configuration in three 3 Appeal 2015-007249 Application 13/029,168 dimensions rather than two. There are only a finite number of ways to depict a real-world three dimensional area on a computer screen and one of ordinary skill would be led to consider two- dimensional and three-dimensional representations. Further, any modem graphical processing unit (GPU) could depict a given scene representative of an area configuration in either two or three dimensions and it would therefore be an obvious variant. Id. at 3. We are persuaded that “propagate, from the user device based on selection of the third icon, a message configured for requesting access to an area configuration based on a three-dimensional representation of the physical area” would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Badt and Suzuki for the reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 2-4; see also Final Act. 5—7. We are unpersuaded of error because Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reasoning that “any modem graphical processing unit (GPU) could depict a given scene representative of an area configuration in either two or three dimensions and it would therefore be an obvious variant.” Ans. 3. Claim 11 Appellants argue that Badt and/or Suzuki do not disclose a “configuration manager,” creation of an “area configuration,” or “device configuration information” as claimed. App. Br. 21—28. We are unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Final Act. 7—9; Ans. 4—6), which Appellants do not persuasively rebut (see Reply Br. 7—10). We note particularly that Appellants have not cited persuasive evidence that the Examiner has constmed the limitations unreasonably broadly or that the limitations are not met by the teachings of the cited references. In other words, Appellants’ arguments fail to afford the claim its broadest reasonable constmction consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech 4 Appeal 2015-007249 Application 13/029,168 Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404—05 (CCPA 1969). Claims 10 and 12—29 Appellants argue the rejection of claim 10 based on claim 1 and argue claims 12—23 and 25—27 based on claim 11. Further, Appellants argue the rejections of claims 24, 28, and 29 based on having overcome the rejection of claim 1 or 11. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejections of claims 10 and 12—29 for reasons discussed above. DECISION We sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 10—29. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation