Ex Parte Walls et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201613000622 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/000,622 12/21/2010 22879 7590 09/30/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jeffrey Joel Walls 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. 82584188 5269 EXAMINER BOOK, PHYLLIS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2016 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): 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 JEFFREY JOEL WALLS, BYRON A. ALCORN, THOMAS J. FLYNN, and ROLAND M. HOCHMUTH Appeal2015-007331 Application 13/000,622 1 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-21. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP (App. Br. 2). Appeal2015-007331 Application 13/000,622 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hochmuth et al. (US 2006/0075106 Al, published Apr. 6, 2006) and Gautier (US 2008/0216146 Al, published Sept. 4, 2008). Ans. 3. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hochmuth, Gautier, and Hasegawa et al. (US 2002/0054112 Al, published May 9, 2002). Ans. 12. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hochmuth, Gautier, and Chaulk et al. (US 7,395,497 Bl, July 1, 2008). Ans. 13. Claims 8 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hochmuth, Gautier, and Berkner et al. (US 7,792,362 B2, Sept. 7, 2010). Ans. 14. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hochmuth, Gautier, and Wen et al. (US 7,613,995 B2, Nov. 3, 2009). Ans. 17. Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 8,321,535 B2, Nov. 27, 2012) and Zoller et al. (US 7,081,904 B2, July 25, 2006). Ans. 19. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Desai, Zoller, and Barry (US 7,440,560 Bl, Oct. 21, 2008). Ans. 23. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Ans. 2. 2 Appeal2015-007331 Application 13/000,622 THE CLAHvIED TI'-JVENTION The present invention relates to establishing and maintaining mappings between back end( s ), front ends, and users while maintaining security and maintaining contact with the reality of the physical situation with which the user is confronted. Spec. i-f 5. Independent claim 1 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium; independent claim 10 is directed to a system; and independent claim 16 is directed to a computer. App. Br. 22, 24, 25. Claim 1 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer- executable instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform a method, the method comprising: identifying a set of services to provide a set of outputs to be displayed to an identified user, where a service is provided by a computer located remote from the identified user; establishing a value for a parameter associated with displaying a member of the set of outputs on a set of displays to the identified user based, at least in part, on a stored mapping that persistently relates the set of services, the set of outputs, the set of displays, and the identified user, where the stored mapping stores information concerning the parameter as configured by the identified user while previously viewing the member of the set of outputs on a set of displays; and adjusting the display of the member of the set of outputs for different sets of displays having different configurations and located at different locations used by the identified user, the adjusting being based, at least in part, on the parameter. Claim 16 recites A computer comprising: a processor and memory; 3 Appeal2015-007331 Application 13/000,622 connection logic to receive a request from an identified user for connection to a number of services, each providing an output; remote access logic to identify a configuration of physical display devices arranged at a remote location of the user; and mapping logic for determining how to display the output from all of the number of services on the configuration of physical display devices. ANALYSIS \Ve have revie\ved the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. \Ve are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief we agree with the Examiner that all the pending daims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references. \Ve adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. \Ve provide the fOllo\1ling expla,natil)11 tl) 11ighlight a.nd ~1d,1ress specific argt1ments ai1d findings prirnarily for emphasis. Rejections under§ 103 Claims 1-9 Appellants contend the combination of Hochmuth and Gautier does not teach or suggest "adjusting the display of the member of the set of outputs for different sets of displays having different configurations and located at different locations used by the identified user, the adjusting being based, at least in part, on the parameter," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue Hochmuth "appears to only contemplate a single client device, i.e., a single point from which the 4 Appeal2015-007331 Application 13/000,622 plurality of remote sessions is managed" and not "the user interface of the session manager application being displayed at different locations." App. Br. 12-13. Appellants further argue Gautier does not teach or suggest the claimed adjusting the display for the displays with different configurations and located at different locations based on the claimed parameter "associated with displaying a member of the set of outputs on a set of displays to the identified user based, at least in part, on a stored mapping that persistently relates the set of services, the set of outputs, the set of displays, and the identified user." App. Br. 14. Appellants' argument against Hochmuth separately from Gautier does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, we agree with the Examiner's findings that "Hochmuth describes the client devices as being designed to use and interact with software residing on remote computers ... at different locations from that of the user" and "Gautier additionally discloses that a user may have one or multiple devices at different locations." Ans. 27-28. As cited by the Examiner, Hochmuth discloses: For example, in one implementation, the information stored in the directory server 146 comprises a profile 156 (also referred to here as a "user profile" 156) for each user that has access to the remote computers 1 04 and a profile 15 8 (also referred to here as a "remote computer profile" 158) for each remote computer 104 included in the system 100. In such an implementation, each user profile 156 specifies on which remote computers 104 the user is authorized to establish a connection... . The multiple-session 5 Appeal2015-007331 Application 13/000,622 manager 148 comprises a user interface 160 for a user of the client device 102 to configure, open, monitor and otherwise control a set of sessions 144 on one or more of the remote computers 104. Hochmuth i-fi-125-26 (emphases added). Gautier discloses: A single TV viewer ("Viewer"), a person viewing a monitor, such as a TV or a computer, connected to an ASTE, can have multiple Viewer Identities, as referred to as Viewer Accounts. These multiple Viewer Identities can be distributed among different ASTBs.. . A Viewer Account is an account that is local to or resides on a particular ASTB which stores the Viewer's preferences, video permissions, email and Internet information, and a UID.. . There can be several ASTBs at different locations, or at the same location (e.g. in different rooms in the same house), each having a Viewer Account for the same Viewer. Gautier i1 23 (emphasis added). In other words, Hochmuth describes user profiles for configuring sessions at remote computers, and Gautier describes a Viewer Account on several set-top boxes at different locations. As such, the combination of Hochmuth and Gautier teaches or suggests user profiles for sessions at remote computers, where the profiles exist for users on devices at different locations. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that "adjusting the display of the member of the set of outputs for d(fferent sets of displays having different configurations and located at different locations used by the identified user, the adjusting being based, at least in part, on the parameter," as required by claim 1, is not taught or otherwise suggested by the user profiles for configuration for a user at displays at different locations taught in the combination of Hochmuth and Gamma. 6 Appeal2015-007331 Application 13/000,622 Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 2-9, not separately argued. See App. Br. 10, 17-18. Claims 10--14 Appellants contend the combination of Hochmuth and Gautier does not teach or suggest "to identify a set of physical displays upon which outputs from the set of services are to be displayed at the location to the user," as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 16. Specifically, Appellants argue Gautier teaches connecting a set-top box to a particular network account, but not "that there is any identification of physical displays on which outputs from a set of service are to be displayed at the user's location." Id. In response, the Examiner finds that "Gautier discloses that when a set-top box is plugged in, an automatic registration is created, and a binding between the set-top box and the user account is created (Gautier, paragraph 14), allowing one user to be connected to a different set-top boxes and their associated displays (set of physical displays) (Gautier, paragraph 23)." Ans. 32. We agree with the Examiner. Gautier teaches or suggests user profiles for sessions at remote computers, where the profiles exist for users on devices at various locations (see Gautier i-f 23). Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that "to identify a set of physical displays upon which outputs from the set of services are to be displayed at the location to the user," as required by claim 10, is not taught or otherwise suggested by the user profiles for parameters for a user at displays at different locations taught in the combination of Hochmuth and Gamma. 7 Appeal2015-007331 Application 13/000,622 Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 10, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 11-14 not separately argued. See App. Br. 10, 18. Claims 16--21 Appellants contend the combination of Desai and Zoller does not teach or suggest "remote access logic to identify a configuration of physical display devices arranged at a remote location of the user," as recited in claim 16. App. Br. 19-20. In response, the Examiner finds Desai' s parsing logic including parameter determination teaches "remote access logic to identify a configuration ... at a remote location of the user"; and Zoller' s remote connections with GUis associated with different remote devices teaches "a configuration of physical display devices arranged." Ans. 34--35; see Ans. 19-20. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that "remote access logic to identify a configuration of physical display devices arranged at a remote location of the user," as required by claim 16, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Desai' s determining parameters with parsing logic and Zoller's different GUis associated with different remote devices using remote connections. We note further that Hochmuth, relied on by the Examiner in the rejection of claims 1-14, describes a session manager application with configuration information for remote computing sessions on a set of remote computers, which teaches or suggests the claimed remote access logic and 8 Appeal2015-007331 Application 13/000,622 configuration of devices at remote locations for a user. See Hochmuth, Abstract. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 16, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 17-21, not separately argued. See App. Br. 21. Rejection under§ 112, second paragraph Appellants contend the "configuration of physical display devices" in claim 20 clearly refer "to only two such configurations" being "the 'different configuration' that is different from the configuration at the user's location, and the second clause refers to the other configuration that is at the location of the user," and that these clauses are not redundant or confusing. Rep. Br. 5---6. We agree with Appellants. The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether "those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification." Orthokinetics, Inc., v. Safety Travel Chairs, 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed ("stored parameters input by the user that define how to display the output from all of the number of services on a configuration of physical display devices that is different from the configuration of physical display devices at the location of the user, the mapping logic using the parameters input by the user regarding the different configuration of physical display devices to determine how to display the output from all of the number of services on the configuration of physical display devices at the location of the user") when the claim is read in light of the Specification. 9 Appeal2015-007331 Application 13/000,622 Accordingly, the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which application regards as the invention, is reversed. DECISION The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-14 and 16-21 are is affirmed. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, of claim 20, is 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 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation