Ex Parte Ward et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2017

14013979 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/013,979 08/29/2013 Jason N. Ward 7794a 4011
7590 11/29/201728004
SPRINT
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
KSOPHTO101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
EXAMINER
KASRAIAN, ALLAHYAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2017 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):
6450patdocs @ sprint.com
steven.j.funk@sprint.com
sprint @ setterroche. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON N. WARD, TUAN Q. TRAN,
and RAYMOND EMILIO REEVES
Appeal 2017-001105
Application 14/013,979
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BETH Z. SHAW, and
ADAM PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20, which constitute all claims pending in this application. App.
Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Sprint Communications Company, L.P. as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001105
Application 14/013,979
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
wireless communication device (101) having an interface (105) for
providing visual notification of wireless data consumed by a plurality of
applications (104) installed on the device. Spec. 14, Fig. 1. In particular,
the device (101) includes a processing system (102) that monitors data
access generated by the applications (104) to determine data throughput and
access frequency associated with each of the applications (104) so as to
select a suitable frame color on a per application basis for subsequently
displaying in the interface (105) colored icons (106, 107) visually depicting
the amount of data consumed by each of the applications. Id. Tflf 12—14.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 below is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A wireless communication device to provide visual notifications
of wireless data consumption, the wireless communication device
comprising:
a wireless transceiver configured to wirelessly
communicate with a data network in response to data access
operations generated by applications operating within the
wireless communication device;
a display system configured to display framed icons
individually associated with the applications; and
a processing system configured to monitor the data
access operations of the applications to determine data
throughput and access frequency for the data access
operations on a per-application basis, process the data
throughput and the access frequency to select frame colors
on a per-application basis, and direct the display system
to display the framed icons with the selected frame colors.
2
Appeal 2017-001105
Application 14/013,979
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Rados et al., (US 2012/0054661 Al,
pub. Mar. 1, 2012, hereinafter “Rados”), Sajja et al., (US 2008/0281607 Al,
pub. Nov. 13, 2008, hereinafter “Sajja”), and Scott et al. (US 2007/0083827
Al, pub. Apr. 12, 2007, hereinafter “Scott”). Final Act. 3—14.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6—7, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—5.2 We are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
hereinbelow, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 3—14; Ans. 2—6. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue that the combination of Rados, Sajja, and Scott does
not teach or suggest processing data throughput and access frequency to
select frame colors on a per application basis, as recited in independent
claim 1. App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 2—3 (citing Scott || 16, 55, 56, and 59). In
particular, Appellants argue that Scott’s disclosure of identifying icons
associated with the most frequently accessed applications does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitations. Id. According to Appellants, although
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 2, 2016) (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed October 24, 2016) (“Reply Br.”), and the Answer (mailed August 24,
2016) (“Ans.”) for the respective details. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2017-001105
Application 14/013,979
Scott teaches arranging applications based on use or activity levels
associated therewith, it fails to teach any activity information pertaining to
data throughput and access frequency. Id. Further, Appellants argue that
although Sajja discloses color coding specific devices to alert certain
predetermined conditions, Sajja does not generate the alerts based on data
throughput and access frequency. Id. (citing Sajja 211—215). Appellants’
arguments are not persuasive.
Rados discloses a user device that monitors network data usage
including packets in traffic generated by applications running on the device.
Rados 1 63. The monitored traffic includes high throughput traffic based on
particular throughput and interval thresholds. Id. Further, Sajja discloses an
interface for displaying the status of applications and devices on a network,
wherein a selected frame color for a device is used to alert users that the
amount of resources consumed by the device is below a predetermined
threshold, or exceeds the threshold. Sajja Tflf 211—215. Additionally, Scott
discloses a system that records in event logs usage activities associated with
applications to thereby display in an interface colored icons depicting the
activity level for each associated application. Scott || 55—56.
We do not agree with Appellants that the proposed combination of
Rados, Sajja, and Scott does not teach the disputed limitations. As correctly
noted by the Examiner, Rados teaches using activity information pertaining
to throughput information to display monitored status of associated
applications. Final Act. 4. Further, Scott discloses using activity
information pertaining to frequency of use to display monitored status of
applications. Ans. 2-4. Furthermore, Rajja discloses selecting color frames
to indicate whether the monitored status of applications is below or exceeds
4
Appeal 2017-001105
Application 14/013,979
a predetermined threshold. Id. at 5. We therefore agree with the Examiner
that the proposed combination of the cited references is no more than a
simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function
it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007). The ordinarily-skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton,” would be able to fit the teachings of Rados, Sajja, and
Scott together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in an interface that
displays icons with frame colors selected based on activity information
computed from data throughput and access frequency pertaining to
monitored applications associated therewith. Id. Because Appellants have
not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have
been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, we
agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would have been
within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we are not persuaded or error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2—20, Appellants have either not
presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially
the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim
1 above, those claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-20.
5
Appeal 2017-001105
Application 14/013,979
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1) (iv).
AFFIRMED
6