Ex Parte SADHVANI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2018

13829929 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/829,929 03/14/2013
25537 7590 05/18/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rita SADHV ANI
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.
20120827 6093
EXAMINER
HAILU, TADESSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2018 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte RITA SADHVANI and HANNAH Y. MOON 1
Appeal2017-011621
Application 13/829,929
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/ A VERIZON
WIRELESS as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-011621
Application 13/829,929
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--14, and 16-21. Claims 3 and 15 were cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A computing device, comprising:
at least one user input/ output element;
a processor configured to control operations of the
computing device, including to provide a user interface via the
at least one user input/ output element;
a memory accessible to the processor; and
programming stored in the memory, wherein execution
of the programming by the processor configures the computing
device to implement functions, including functions to:
present information output for a user via the at
least one user input/output element, receive responsive
user input via the at least one user input/ output element,
and analyze the received responsive user input to
automatically determine vision ability of the user;
wherein the function to present information output for the
user comprises a function to present a vision test on a
display of the computing device, and the function to
receive responsive user input comprising receiving a
verbal response from the user identifying one or more
characters the user sees on the at least one user
input/ output element; and
automatically adjust a setting of the user
interface based on the determined vision ability of the
user, wherein the function to automatically adjust the
setting of the user interface based on the determined
2
Appeal2017-011621
Application 13/829,929
vision ability of the user comprises functions to adjust
the setting of the user interface according to a user
inter/ ace setting value, stored in a data repository, and
corresponding to the determined vision ability.
App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11-14, 16-18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Berry et al.
(US 2013/0141697 Al; published June 6, 2013) ("Berry"). 2
2. The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Berry and Toshima et al. (US 2005/0073648 Al;
published Apr. 7, 2005) ("Toshima"). 3
3. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berry and Ollivierre et al.
(US 8,881,058 B2; issued Nov. 4, 2014) ("Ollivierre").
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 as being
obvious?
2 The patentability of claims 2, 4--7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 21 is not
separately argued from that of claims 1, 8, 13, and 20. See App. Br. 12-15.
Thus, with respect to this rejection, except for our ultimate decision, claims
2, 4--7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and 21 are not discussed further herein.
3 In the Final Office Action, claims 6 and 19 were also rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berry and Lee et al.
(US 2014/0268060 Al; published Sept. 18, 2014) ("Lee"). See Final Act. 8.
However, the Examiner did not include this rejection in the "Grounds of
Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal" section of the Examiner's Answer.
See Ans. 2. Thus, this rejection is not before us.
3
Appeal2017-011621
Application 13/829,929
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the
claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verb is test, i.e., identity of terminology is
not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
ANALYSIS
A. Rejection of Claims 1 and 13
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Berry fails to disclose the
claimed element, "automatically adjust a setting of the user interface based
on the determined vision ability of the user, wherein the function to
automatically adjust the setting of the user interface based on the determined
vision ability of the user comprises functions to adjust the setting of the user
interface according to a user interface setting value, stored in a data
repository, and corresponding to the determined vision ability," as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 13. See App. Br. 7, 13-14. More
specifically, Appellant contends:
None of the cited paragraphs or figures relate to automatically
adjusting a setting of the user interface based on the determined
vision ability of the user, as required by the claim. Moreover,
there is nothing in the cited portions or anywhere else in Berry
that discloses adjusting the setting of the user interface according
to a user interface setting value stored in a data repository.
4
Appeal2017-011621
Application 13/829,929
[Paragraph [0045]] relates to data stored in a storage component
that facilitates administrating medical examinations. . ..
However, there is nothing in this paragraph that suggests the data
stored in the storage component includes a user inter/ ace setting
value. The fact that the data includes metadata for facilitating
administration of medical examinations does not in any way
establish that such data includes a user interface setting value.
[T]here is nothing in any of the cited paragraphs that discloses or
mentions automatically adjusting a setting of the user interface
based on the determined vision ability of the user.
[Paragraph [0061 ]] relates to identifying and selecting one or
more vision tests to perform based on user input and/or locally
and remotely stored information. Selecting a vision test,
however, is unrelated to adjusting a setting of the user interface
based on the determined vision ability of the user. It is unclear
how selecting a specific type of vision test teaches automatically
adjusting "a setting of the user interface based on the determined
vision ability of the user" or adjusting "the setting of the user
interface according to a user interface setting value, stored in a
data repository, and corresponding to the determined vision
ability."
Berry's discussion of obtaining "physical information about the
user from storage component 111 and/or clearinghouse 105, or
from express user input" does not disclose "the determined
vision ability of the user," required by the claim. Calibrating and
configuring the examination system of Berry is done for
"accurate test administration," and not "based on the
determined vision ability of the user" after the vision ability is
determined by a vision test as recited in claim 1. In other words,
Berry calibrates the system to conduct an accurate test, while the
adjusting in the claim is a setting of the user interface based on
the results of the test.
5
Appeal2017-011621
Application 13/829,929
More importantly, calibrating a test is not the same as adjusting
a setting of the user interface. One can calibrate a test by
changing the parameters of the test (e.g., altering the colors
displayed at the portable consumer device for optimal clarity as
discussed in paragraph [0080] of Berry). There is nothing in the
cited portion or anywhere else in Berry that suggests a test is
calibrated by adjusting a setting of the user interface.
Accordingly, the calibration process taught in Berry does not
disclose "adjust[ing] a setting of the user interface based on the
determined vision ability of the user."
App. Br. 8-12 (Appellants' emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added); see
also Reply Br. 3-8.
With respect to Appellants' argument that Berry fails to disclose
automatically adjusting a setting of a user interface, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Appellants' Specification discloses that an example of a
setting of a user interface includes a font size. See, e.g., Spec. i-fi-1 20, 44 ).
Likewise, Berry discloses adjusting visual characteristics (e.g., size) of a
visual test element. See, e.g., Berry i174. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Berry teaches automatically adjusting a setting of a user interface. See,
e.g., Ans. 6.
Further, Appellants' argument that Berry fails to teach automatically
adjusting a setting of a user interface according to a user interface setting
value stored in a data repository, is not persuasive either. Berry discloses
storing metadata that facilitates administration of medical examinations,
including information that configures medical tests, in a storage component
(i.e., the claimed "data repository"). See, e.g., Berry i-fi-1 45--46. As Berry
further discloses that part of the configuration of a medical test is adjusting
visual characteristics of a visual test element (see, e.g., Berry i-fi-164---65, 74),
Berry teaches that the metadata stored in the storage component includes a
6
Appeal2017-011621
Application 13/829,929
visual characteristic value for the visual test element (i.e., the claimed "user
interface setting value"). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Berry
teaches automatically adjusting a setting of a user interface according to a
user interface setting value stored in a data repository. See, e.g., Final
Act. 4.
Additionally, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Berry
fails to teach automatically adjusting a setting of a user interface based on~
determined vision ability of a user. Berry discloses prompting a user to
identify a visual test element (e.g., letter, shape, or other object) displayed in
a screen as part of a visual acuity test (see, e.g., Berry i-f 75), and Berry
further discloses dynamically resizing the displayed visual test element until
a user identifies that he or she can recognize the visual test element. See,
e.g., Berry i-f 77. As the recognition (or lack thereof) of the visual test
element by the user teaches a determined vision ability of the user, we agree
with the Examiner that Berry teaches adjusting a setting of a user interface
based on a determined vision ability of a user. See, e.g., Ans. 5---6.
Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
B. Rejection of Claim 8
Appellants contend the Examiner also erred in rejecting independent
claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). See App. Br. 12-13. As argued by
Appellants:
[Claim 8] was rejected "under the same [rationale]" as that
of claim 1. Final Office Action, p. 5. Appellant[s] respectfully
disagrees. None of the cited paragraphs or figures relate to
providing "a user interface setting for the client computing
7
Appeal2017-011621
Application 13/829,929
device mapped, in the data storage device, to the vision ability
of the user," wherein the vision ability is determined from "a
response to the vision test from a user of the client computing
device, the response comprising a verbal response identifying
one or more characters the user can see on the display."
It appears that the Final Office Action cites to this paragraph for
teaching the limitation "a user interface setting for the client
computing device mapped, in the data storage device, to the
vision ability of the user." The paragraph, however, relates to
data stored in a storage component that facilitates administrating
medical examinations. There is nothing here that suggests the
data stored in the storage component includes a user interface
setting for the client computing device that is mapped to the
vision ability of the user. The fact that the data includes metadata
for facilitating administration of medical examinations does not
in any way establish that such data includes a user interface
setting. Thus, Berry fails to disclose at least the limitation
"provide, to the client computing device, a user interface setting
for the client computing device mapped, in the data storage
device, to the vision ability of the user, wherein the user interface
setting relates to a visual output of the client computing device,"
as recited in claim 8.
Id. (Appellants' emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added).
Rather than recite "automatically adjust[ing] a setting of the user
interface based on the determined vision ability of the user," as recited in
claim 1, claim 8 recites "provid[ ing], to [a] client computing device a user
interface setting for the client computing device mapped, in the data storage
device, to the vision ability of the user." Contrary to Appellants' argument,
and as previously discussed, Berry discloses storing information that
configures medical tests in a storage component, and further discloses
adjusting visual characteristics of a visual test element based on the
recognition (or lack thereof) of the visual test element by a user. See, e.g.,
8
Appeal2017-011621
Application 13/829,929
Berry i-fi-145--46, 64---65, 74--75, and 77. Thus, Berry teaches that the
metadata stored in the storage component includes a visual characteristic
setting for a visual test element that corresponds to a determination whether
a user recognizes the visual test element (i.e., the claimed "user interface
setting ... mapped ... to the vision ability of the user).
Accordingly, Appellants have also not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
C. Rejection of Claim 20
Appellants contend the Examiner also erred in rejecting independent
claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). See App. Br. 14. As argued by
Appellants:
The Final Office Action fails to provide any explanation as to
how claim 20 is rejected over Berry. However, as claim 20
contains limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1
discussed above, for at least the reasons presented above with
respect to claim 1, Appellant respectfully requests reversal of the
rejection of claim 20.
Id. (Appellants' emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added).
Although the Final Office Action did not reference claim 20, the
Examiner found, in the Examiner's Answer, that the subject matter of claim
20 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1, and that claim 20 was
rejected for substantially similar reasons claim 1 was rejected. See Ans. 8.
Accordingly, for reasons similar to the reasons discussed above with respect
to claim 1, Appellants have also not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
9
Appeal2017-011621
Application 13/829,929
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11-
14, 16-18, and 20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 6, 9, 10, 19, and
21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1, 2, 4--14, and 16-21 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11-14,
16-18, and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 9, 10, 19, and 21 as
being unpatentable 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