Ex Parte Suggs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

13431949 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/431,949 03/27/2012
22879 7590 09/14/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bradley Neal Suggs
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.
82979738 9452
EXAMINER
WONG, TITUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADLEY NEAL SUGGS
Appeal2014-008788
Application No. 13/431,9491
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-14 and 17-22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant's invention is a device including a communication
component to couple the device, through a communication channel, to a first
portable computing device and a second portable computing device. The
device further includes a controller to use the first portable computing device
1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
2 Claims 15 and 16 have been cancelled.
Appeal2014-008788
Application No. 13/431,949
as a first input component of the device and to use the second portable
computing device as a second input component of the device. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A device comprising:
a communication component to couple the device to a first
portable computing device and a second portable computing device
through a communication channel; and
a controller to utilize the first portable computing device as a
first input component of the device and utilize the second portable
computing device as a second input component of the device through
the communication channel;
wherein launching a keyboard application on the first portable
computing device and a pointer application on the second portable
computing device disables the first portable computing device and the
second portable computing device from accessing additional functions
and applications.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Chu US 2012/0214462 1A .. l Aug. 23, 2012
Chan et al. US 8,325,151 Bl Dec. 4, 2012
Poplett et al. US 8,509,754 B2 Aug. 13, 2013
Claims 1-8, 17, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Chan.
Claims 9-14 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chan and Poplett.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chan and Chu.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed January 23, 2014), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed
2
Appeal2014-008788
Application No. 13/431,949
August 12, 2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 19,
2014) for their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does Chan disclose launching a keyboard application on a first
portable computing device and a pointer application on a second portable
computing device?
2. Does Chan disclose utilizing a first communication protocol for the
first portable computing device and a second communication protocol for
the second portable computing device?
3. Does the combination of Chan and Poplett disclose or suggest
utilizing the first portable computing device as a first input component of the
device and utilizing the second portable computing device as a second input
component of the device?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference." See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting Jn re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-8, 17, 18, AND 21
The Examiner finds that Chan discloses launching a keyboard
application on a first portable computing device and a pointer application on
a second portable computing device, as claim 1 recites. See Ans. 3--4.
According to the Examiner, Chan "discloses multiple mobile devices 20
connected to the system." For support of this position, the Examiner cites
3
Appeal2014-008788
Application No. 13/431,949
Figure 1 of Chan, which the Examiner alleges illustrates two mobile devices
20 simultaneously connected to computing device 12. See Ans. 3.
We do not agree with the Examiner's characterization. Chan
discloses that "FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example system 2 in
which mobile device 20 displays various graphical user interfaces (GUis)
based on a physical orientation for mobile device 20." Col. 4, 11. 19-22.
Chan further discloses that "[ m ]obile device 20 may comprise, for example,
a cellular telephone, personal digital assistant (PDA) smartphone, or the
like." Col. 4, 11. 26-28. "In the example of FIG. 1, when in a landscape
orientation and when the application is in an appropriate context, mobile
device 20 presents a keyboard" GUI 14. Col. 5, 11. 1-3. "On the other hand,
in this example, when in a portrait orientation, mobile device presents a
trackpad GUI 16." Col. 5, 11. 11-12. Chan's specification always discusses
"mobile device 20" in the singular, never in the plural. Further, Chan's use
of the phrase "on the other hand" indicates an alternative orientation for the
single mobile device 20 of Figure 1. See Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant that Chan discloses a plurality of alternative
choices for the device interface 30: Bluetooth, USB, micro-USB, mini-
USB, Fire Wire, network, or "other interface ... capable of exchanging data
with computing device 12." See Col. 8, 11. 2---6. We observe that Chan
always refers to a "device interface" in the singular, and never in the plural.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Chan discloses the connection of
multiple mobile devices 20 simultaneously. See Ans. 3. The fact that some
of the interfaces mentioned, e.g. Bluetooth and USB, support the connection
of multiple devices does not alter the fact that Chan contains no disclosure of
connecting more than one mobile device at a time.
4
Appeal2014-008788
Application No. 13/431,949
We do not agree with the Examiner that Chan discloses utilizing a
first communication protocol for the first portable computing device, the
first communication protocol being different from a second communication
protocol for the second portable computing device, as claim 17 recites. See
Ans. 5---6. First, as explained supra, Chan does not disclose using a first and
a second portable computing device. Second, contrary to the Examiner's
finding, Chan does not disclose a plurality of communication protocols in
simultaneous use. See Ans. 5. Column 8, lines 1---6 of Chan merely
expresses a list of alternatives for the (single) external device interface 30.
We find that Chan does not disclose all the elements of independent
claims 1 and 17. We do not sustain the Examiner's§ 102 rejection of claims
1-8, 17, 18, and 21 over Chan.
CLAIMS 9-14 AND 22
Independent claim 9 recites "coupling a first portable computing
device to the device and coupling a second portable computing device to the
device through a communications channel." As discussed supra, we find
error in the Examiner's finding that Chan discloses connecting more than
one mobile device 20 to computing device 12. The portions of Poplett relied
upon by the Examiner fail to remedy the deficiencies of Chan.
Accordingly, we find that the combined disclosures of Chan and
Poplett fail to teach or suggest all the elements of claim 9. We do not
sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 9-14 and 22 over the
combination of Chan and Poplett.
5
Appeal2014-008788
Application No. 13/431,949
CLAIMS 19 AND 20
Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 17. We have reviewed the
sections of Chu relied upon by the Examiner and we find that Chu does not
remedy the deficiencies of Chan with respect to claim 17, as explained
supra. We do not sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 19 and
20 over the combination of Chan and Chu.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Chan does not disclose launching a keyboard application on a first
portable computing device and a pointer application on a second portable
computing device.
2. Chan does not disclose utilizing a first communication protocol for
the first portable computing device and a second communication protocol
for the second portable computing device.
3. The combination of Chan and Poplett does not disclose or suggest
utilizing the first portable computing device as a first input component of the
device and utilizing the second portable computing device as a second input
component of the device.
ORDER
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14 and 17-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
6