Ex Parte Sandmel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 201814083579 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/083,579 11/19/2013 61947 7590 05/21/2018 Apple - Blank Rome c/o Blank Rome LLP 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400 HOUSTON, TX 77002 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jeremy Todd Sandmel 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. P5723USC1 3586 ( l l 9-0366USC 1) EXAMINER MA, TIZE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/21/2018 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): mbrininger@blankrome.com houstonpatents@blankrome.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEREMY TODD SANDMEL, JOHN STUART HARPER, and KENNETH CHRISTIAN DYKE Appeal2017-010985 Application 14/083,579 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 12-14, 17-20, and 24--26, constituting all claims pending in the current application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to a framework for dynamic selection and configuration of hardware resources. Spec. ,-r 5. Claim 1, Appeal2017-010985 Application 14/083,579 reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory program storage device, on which are stored instructions for execution by a data processing apparatus, comprising instructions for causing the data processing apparatus to: interpose a framework layer between an application and hardware resources of a data processing apparatus, wherein the framework layer comprises instructions that when executed cause the data processing apparatus to: receive, by the framework layer, display data that includes a hierarchically organized plurality of media objects from the application, wherein the media objects are indicative of an appearance of the display data after being rendered; identifY, by the framework layer, a media type for each of the plurality of media objects; dynamically allocate, by the framework layer, at least some of the hardware resources to render the display data based on the media type for each of the plurality of media objects; configure, by the framework layer, the allocated hardware resources for rendering the display data; and render the display data with the configured hardware resources, wherein the display data does not describe how the display data should be rendered. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 9, 14, and 21-23 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 13, and 2 Appeal2017-010985 Application 14/083,579 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,610,725 B2, and in view of Harper et al (US 2005/0231502 Al; published Oct. 20, 2005) ("Harper"). Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 12-14, 17, 19, 20, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Harper and Marinkovic et al. (US 2007 /0283175 Al; published Dec. 6, 2007) ("Marinkovic"). Claims 6, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Harper, Marinkovic, and Srinivasan et al. (US 2008/0001952 Al; published Jan. 3, 2008) ("Srinivasan"). ANALYSIS Double Patenting Rejections With regard to the double patenting rejections, Appellants "will defer taking appropriate action to a later point and time" and do "not substantively address the nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the rejection can be overcome by filing a Terminal Disclaimer." App. Br. 7. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 9, 14, and 21- 23 for nonstatutory double patenting. See MPEP § 1205.02 (2017) ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it."); see also Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue--or more broadly, on a particular rejection-- the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection."). 3 Appeal2017-010985 Application 14/083,579 Obviousness Rejections Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Harper and Marinkovic teaches or suggests to "identify, by the framework layer, a media type for each of the plurality of media objects" and "dynamically allocate, by the framework layer, at least some of the hardware resources to render the display data based on the media type for each of the plurality of media objects," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 9 and 14? The Examiner relies on Marinkovic to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Final Act. 11-13 (citing Marinkovic i-fi-166-68, 70). Appellants argue "nowhere does Marinkovic state that its software 200 disables a power graphics subsystem by identifying media types for each of the media objects. Rather, Marinkovic' s software 200 disables the graphics subsystems by determining a power consumption mode for the device." App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, "Marinkovic' s software 200, or more precisely, power control application 220 allows device 10 to selectively disable power graphics subsystem 30 and 40 based on determining a power consumption mode, not identifj;ing a media type (or each of the media objects." App. Br. 11; see also App. Br. 16. We agree with Appellants. Marinkovic describes switching between two power consumption modes and in response, disabling or enabling an appropriate graphics subsystem. Marinkovic i-fi-168, 70, 72. For example, when the device is operating in a higher power consumption mode (e.g., operating from an AC power source), the graphics subsystem capable of more computationally intensive graphics may be used, and when the device is operating in a lower power consumption mode (e.g., operating from a DC 4 Appeal2017-010985 Application 14/083,579 power supply), the graphics subsystem with more limited functionality may be used. Marinkovic i-fi-164, 66, 75. Although the Examiner finds "Marinkovic enables or disables the graphics subsystems based on the types of the graphics," (Ans. 4), we do not see such teachings in the cited portions of Marinkovic. Rather, Marinkovic enables or disables the graphics subsystems based on the power consumption mode of the device. See Marinkovic Fig. 4 (switch 56 and CNTRL), Fig. 5 ("State Change"), i-fi-170, 75. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 14, and for the same reasons, dependent claims 3, 5-8, 12, 13, 17-19, 20, and 24--26. DECISION The Examiner's nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 1, 9, 14, and 21-23 are affirmed. The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 12-14, 17-20, and 24--26 are reversed. 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-IN-PART 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation