Ex Parte Smith

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

11809998 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111809,998 0610412007
24126 7590 02/25/2016
ST. ONGE STEW ARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC
986 BEDFORD STREET
STAMFORD, CT 06905-5619
Todd R. Smith
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.
05630-POOOlA 1392
EXAMINER
CHEN, WENPENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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):
patentpto@ssjr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TODD R. SMITH
Appeal2014-001604
Application 11/809,998
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's non-
final rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We heard oral argument on February 16, 2016.
We affirm.
Appeal2014-001604
Application 11/809,998
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to remotely accessing and controlling a
computer. See Spec. i-f 1. Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method of remotely accessing and controlling a
computer from a mobile device, comprising:
receiving audio data from the mobile device at the
computer;
decoding the audio data into a command;
selecting, between two or more native applications, an
appropriate one of the two or more native applications capable of
executing at least one process at the computer in response to the
command;
executing, with the selected one of the two or more native
applications, the at least one process at the computer in response
to the command;
generating output data at the computer in response to
executing at least one process at the computer; and
transmitting the output data to the mobile device.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 5-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wong (US 2006/0235700 Al, published Oct. 19,
2006) and Rantapuska (US 2007/0184899 Al, published Aug. 9, 2007).
Non-Final Act. 2-10.
The Examiner rejects claims 2--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong, Rantapuska, and Kim (US 2003/0215115 Al,
published Nov. 20, 2003). Non-Final Act. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 5, and 9 because the applied prior art fails to teach the selection of
2
Appeal2014-001604
Application 11/809,998
one native application from multiple native applications. See App. Br. 6-7.
We have reviewed the Examiner's findings and conclusions in light of
Appellant's contentions, and we are unpersuaded of error.
Appellant contends that Wong does not teach multiple native
applications. See App. Br. 7-23; Reply Br. 2--4. The Examiner, however,
relies on Wong or Rantapuska for teaching and suggesting multiple native
applications. Ans. 20 ("[E]ven if Wong's application 220 is not considered
as suite software containing many native applications, the rejection is still
valid because Rantapuska teaches explicitly native applications."). For
example, the Examiner directs us to where Rantapuska discusses executing
multiple native applications on a specific device. Ans. 18 (citing
Rantapuska i-f 23). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding that
Rantapuska teaches multiple native applications. See Appeal Br. 25.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's contention.
Appellant further contends that "Rantapuska, like Wong et al. ... is
directed to an application-specific system, meaning that it is configured to
allow a person to use voice commands to control only one specific
application at a time." Appeal Br. 24. The claims, however, do not recite
language excluding an application-specific system. Nor does Appellant
persuasively explain why the claims, as written, would exclude such a
system. Appellant's argument is therefore incommensurate in scope with
the claims, and we accordingly find the argument unpersuasive.
Appellant further contends that Rantapuska does not teach "'decoding
the audio data into a command' and then 'selecting, between two or more
native applications, an appropriate one of the two or more native
applications capable of executing at least one process at the computer in
3
Appeal2014-001604
Application 11/809,998
response to the command' as is required by Claim 1, and similarly by
Claims 5 and 9." Appeal Br. 26 (emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded
by Appellant's contention in this regard. As an initial matter, we note that
the Examiner relies on Wong, not Rantapuska, for the decoding step. Non-
Final Act. 3. As for the selecting step, the Examiner directs us to where
Rantapuska discloses a specific device that can execute multiple native
applications, as discussed above. See Ans. 18 (citing Rantapuska i-f 23);
Rantapuska i-f 23 ("processor 12 may be capable of executing native
applications"). In rejecting the claims, the Examiner further directs us to
where Rantapuska discloses that the specific device is also connected to a
user input interface that may comprise a microphone. See Non-Final Act. 5
(citing Rantapuska i-f 22); Rantapuska i-f 22 ("[t]he processor may also be
connected to at least one user interface"). The cited disclosures refer to
Figure 1 of Rantapuska, which shows that a gaming application within the
processor receives input from the user input interface and provides output to
any one of the native applications. See Rantapuska i-fi-1 22, 23, Fig. 1. Based
on these disclosures, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Rantapuska
teaches and suggests the recited selecting between two or more native
applications. See Non-Final Act. 5.
With respect to claims 5 and 9 in particular, Appellant further
contends that "[t]he Examiner does not even assert that Rantapuska discloses
such an interface/means" for performing the recited selecting step. App. Br.
24. As discussed above, however, the Examiner directs us to where
Rantapuska discloses a processor in which a gaming application receives
input from a user input interface and provides output to any one of the native
applications. See Non-Final Act. 5 (citing i-fi-122, 23); accord id. at 7, 9; see
4
Appeal2014-001604
Application 11/809,998
also Rantapuska iii! 22, 23, Fig. 1. Based on the cited portions of
Rantapuska, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's contention.
Appellant further contends that "Rantapuska does not even disclose
Appellant's second computer." Reply Br. 9. Appellant raises this argument
for the first time in the Reply Brief, and the argument is not in response to a
new issue brought up by the Examiner in the Answer. We therefore find this
new argument unavailing. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474
(BP AI 2010) (informative). We nonetheless also find the argument
unpersuasive, as the Examiner relies on Wong, not Rantapuska, for teaching
and suggesting the recited computer. See Non-Final Act. 2, 5, 8.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner's proposed combination
is improper because Wong "is concerned only with providing voice
commands to a single native application," and modifying Wong's system to
include the recited selecting step "would make the system of Wong et al.
more complex without there having been any reason to do so." App. Br. 27.
As the Examiner points out, however, "Wong does not restrict itself to
allowing only one application residing in its device." Ans. 25 (citing Wong
ifil 3 3, 299, 301 ); see Reply Br. 4 ("it is conceivable that the teachings of
Wong could be used with more than one 'application 220'"). According to
the Examiner, "the combination of Wong and Rantapuska broadens utilities
of a mobile device," and "[t]he desire of broadening utilities is evident in
that many applications are included in a mobile phone now." Id. We agree
with the Examiner's reasoning and find Appellant's contention
unpersuasive.
Finally, Appellant contends that the Examiner's proposed
combination is also improper because Rantapuska teaches away from
5
Appeal2014-001604
Application 11/809,998
Appellant's invention, which '"allows a person using a mobile device to
remotely interact with a computer ... in a manner similar to what the person
would see and hear, if the person were directly and locally interacting with
the computer.'" Reply Br. 11. Appellant raises this argument for the first
time in the Reply Brief, and the argument is not in response to a new issue
brought up by the Examiner in the Answer. We therefore find this new
argument unavailing. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d at 1474. We
nonetheless also find the argument unpersuasive because it is not
commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims do not recite the argued
feature. Nor does Appellant provide any persuasive explanation as to why
the claims, as written, would require such feature.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner's findings and conclusions as to claims 1, 5, and 19. Appellant
presents no separate arguments for the remaining claims. See Appeal Br.
28-29. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 1-
12.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 is 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
6