Ex Parte Want et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

12347174 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/347,174 12/31/2008
57035 7590 11/30/2018
KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC
Attention: Tricia Riddle
430 Davis Drive
Suite 150
Morrisville, NC 27560
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Roy Want
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.
P28272/1020P28272 1631
EXAMINER
STITT, ERIK V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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):
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
docketing@kdbfirm.com
intel@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROY WANT, KENTON LYONS, TREVOR PERING,
SHIV ANIA. SUD, and BARBARA ROSARIO
Appeal 2018-003 634
Application 12/347, 174 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1---6, 10-13, and 16-20, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the Application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br.
2.
Appeal 2018-003634
Application 12/347,174
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to context
enhanced wireless discovery. See Spec. ,r 6. "One embodiment relates to a
mobile computing device comprising a discovery module to receive status
information for one or more target devices." Spec. ,r 6.
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor circuit;
a discovery module for execution by the processor circuit
to receive status information and service information for one or
more target devices over a wireless connection, the status
information comprising physical characteristics of the one or
more target devices and the service information comprising
services, data or information that are available from the one or
more target devices;
a composition manager for execution by the processor
circuit to generate a graphical user interface including
augmented graphical icons, graphs, or text, organized to
represent the status information and the service information, the
augmented graphical icons, graphs or text operative to
dynamically change within the graphical user interface in
response to changes in the physical characteristics of a target
device of the one or more target devices detected by one or
more sensors of the target device, the physical characteristics
comprising one or more of a shaking movement of the target
device, a direction in which the target device faces or a quantity
of hands holding the target device; and
a connection module for execution by the processor
circuit to establish a wireless connection between a source
device and one or more of the target devices, the connection
established based on a selection signal received from the
composition manager, the selection signal representative of one
of the augmented graphical icons, graphs or text within the
graphical user interface.
2
Appeal 2018-003634
Application 12/347,174
References and Rejections2
Claims 1--4, 10-12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Irie (US 5,847,658; Dec. 8, 1998),
Holmes (US 2003/0025612 Al; Feb. 6, 2003), and Jones (US 2007/0264991
Al; Nov. 15, 2007).
Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Irie, Holmes, Jones, and Corzillus (US
2003/0193562 Al; Oct. 16, 2003).
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Irie, Holmes, Jones, and Lohi (US 2008/0163057 Al; July
3, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 16-20
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 4---6) and (ii) the Answer (Ans. 3---6) to the extent
they are consistent with our analysis below. 3
Obviousness
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the (1) Final Rejection dated
November 9, 2015 ("Final Act."); (2) Appeal Brief dated February 1, 2017
("App. Br."); (3) Examiner's Answer dated December 20, 2017 ("Ans.");
and (4) Reply Brief dated February 20, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
3 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.4I(b)(2).
3
Appeal 2018-003634
Application 12/347,174
I
Appellants contend Irie, Holmes, and Jones do not collectively teach
a connection module for execution by the processor circuit to
establish a wireless connection between a source device and
one or more of the target devices, the connection established
based on a selection signal received from the composition
manager, the selection signal representative of one of the
augmented graphical icons, graphs or text within the graphical
user interface,
as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 19-23; Reply Br. 3. In particular,
Appellants contend Irie teaches a vibration monitor and associated features,
but not the above limitation. See App. Br. 20. Appellants argue neither
Holmes nor Jones remedies the deficiency of Irie. See App. Br. 20-22.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner explains Irie and Jones collectively teach the
disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 3---6. In particular, the Examiner cites
Jones' Figure 4 and paragraphs 51 and 52, and explains why they teach the
disputed limitation. See Ans. 3---6. The Examiner also explains why Jones
teaches the claimed "selection signal." See Ans. 4. Appellants do not
critique the Jones' portions cited by the Examiner, and do not persuasively
explain why the Examiner's explanation is incorrect. Therefore, Appellants
fail to show error in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388,391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this
court [ or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
4
Appeal 2018-003634
Application 12/347,174
II
Appellants contend Jones does not teach the claimed "status
information." App. Br. 22. In particular, Appellants argue "[t]he status
information recited in claim 1 comprises physical characteristics of the one
or more devices which can be measured" and "[t]he available services taught
in Jones are not physical characteristics of the devices." App. Br. 22. In the
Reply Brief, Appellants contend:
each independent claim in the current disclosure recites "the
physical characteristics comprising one or more of a shaking
movement of the target device, a direction in which the target
devices faces, or a quantity of hands holding the target device".
However, [in Jones,] being available or unavailable is not
equivalent to one or more of a shaking movement of the target
device, a direction in which the target devices faces, or a
quantity of hands holding the target device.
Reply Br. 3.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they are not directed
to the Examiner's specific findings. The Examiner cites Irie-not Jones-
for teaching the claimed "status information" and "the physical
characteristics comprising one or more of a shaking movement of the target
device, a direction in which the target device faces or a quantity of hands
holding the target device." See Final Act. 4--6. Because Appellants do not
dispute such findings based on Irie, Appellants fail to show Examiner error.
See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, and we thus
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
Appellants argue each of independent claims 10 and 1 7 recites the
disputed limitations of claim 1, and is allowable for similar reasons. See
5
Appeal 2018-003634
Application 12/347,174
App. Br. 23. However, Appellants have not shown each of claims 10 and 17
recites the following disputed limitation of claim 1:
a connection module for execution by the processor circuit to
establish a wireless connection between a source device and
one or more of the target devices, the connection established
based on a selection signal received from the composition
manager, the selection signal representative of one of the
augmented graphical icons, graphs or text within the graphical
user interface.
In any event, as discussed above, Appellants' arguments about claim 1
are unpersuasive. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 10 and 1 7.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-6, 11, 12, 16, and 18-20, as Appellants do not advance separate
substantive arguments about those claims.
Claim 13
The Examiner does not include any substantive rejection of claim 13
in the Final Rejection dated November 9, 2015 or the Non-Final Rejection
dated April 1, 2015. Because the Examiner has not properly maintained the
rejection of claim 13, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 10-12, and
16-20.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 13.
6
Appeal 2018-003634
Application 12/347,174
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7