Ex Parte YANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2019

14494987 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/494,987 09/24/2014
68103 7590 01/22/2019
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pil-seung YANG
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.
0502-0102 2678
EXAMINER
SPRATT,BEAUD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2019 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PIL-SEUNG YANG, CHAN-HONG MIN,
YOUNG-AH SEONG, and SAY JANG
Appeal2018-005763
Application 14/494,987 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITT A II Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--10, 13-17, 19-25, and 28-
3 6, all of the claims pending in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Appellant") is the applicant, as provided
for under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and is also identified in the Appeal Brief as the
real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 3, 11, 12, 18, 26, and 27 are cancelled. See Appeal Br., Claims
Appx.
Appeal 2018-005763
Application 14/494,987
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellant's invention relates to sharing content, such as handwritten
information., between devices using transparent layers. See Spec. ,r,r 2, 8. 3
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 10, 16, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary and
is reproduced below with limitation at issue italicized.
1. A content sharing method performed by a display
device connected to at least one user terminal, the content
sharing method comprising:
displaying content on the display device;
receiving information included in a transparent layer of a
first user terminal among the at least one user terminal from the
first user terminal; and
overlapping the transparent layer of the first user
terminal, including the information received from the first user
terminal, on the displayed content,
wherein the at least one user terminal outputs the content
to share a screen displayed on the display device, and
wherein the information included in the transparent layer
of the first user terminal includes a property of the transparent
layer indicating the transparent layer is shareable.
Appeal Br. 10.
3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the following documents:
(1) Appellant's Specification, filed September 24, 2014 ("Spec."); (2) the
Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed November 2, 2017; (3) the
Appeal Brief filed February 27, 2018 ("Appeal Br."); (4) the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed March 22, 2018; and (5) the Reply Brief filed May
15, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal 2018-005763
Application 14/494,987
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13-17, 19, 20, 24, 25, and 28-36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination
ofViswanathan (US 2012/0254773 Al; pub. Oct. 4, 2012) and Branton et al.
(US 2014/0281875 Al; pub. Sep. 18, 2014) ("Branton"). Final Act. 2-15.
Claims 6-8 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Viswanathan, Branton, and Samsung,
Samsung School - smart education solution, https://www.myldi.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/Samsung-School.pdf (2013) (last visited January
10, 2018) ("Samsung"). Final Act. 15-17.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017).
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claim 1 Under § 103
Issue: Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Viswanathan and Branton teaches or suggests "wherein the information
included in the transparent layer of the first user terminal includes a property
of the transparent layer indicating the transparent layer is shareable," as
recited in claim 1?
The Examiner finds Branton teaches the limitation at issue. See Final
Act. 4; Ans. 19-21 (citing Branton ,r,r 2--4, 37, 52, 92, 93, 112).
Specifically, the Examiner relies on Branton's discussion of collaborative
annotation of documents in which "' [ u ]sers can control which layers are
shown and hidden'; transparent layer." Final Act. 4 (citing Branton ,r 105).
3
Appeal 2018-005763
Application 14/494,987
Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings, arguing Branton
doesn't teach a property included in the transparent layer. Specifically,
Appellant argues "Branton provides no disclosure that any information is
included in a transparent layer, aside from perhaps the user label and the
sequence identifier. But Branton makes no disclosure that the user label and
sequence identifier are properties that indicate the transparent layer is
shareable." Appeal Br. 6; see Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Appellant
amended claim 1 to include the limitation at issue in an Amendment filed
January 26, 2017 ("Amendment"). See Amendment 2. Appellant relies on
paragraph 33 of Appellant's Specification (the "Specification") to support
the newly added limitation. See Amendment 10; see also Appeal Br. 2, 5.
Paragraph 33 of the Specification discloses that:
The control unit may determine a property of the transparent
layer and controls the communication unit to transmit the first
handwritten information included in the transparent layer of the
first user terminal to the display device according to the
property of the transparent layer of the first user terminal,
wherein the property of the transparent layer of the first user
terminal indicates if the transparent layer of the first user
terminal is shareable.
Spec. ,r 33.
The Examiner finds that "[ t ]his description does not specify how the
layer, information and property are stored or what they themselves are
included in." Ans. 20-21. We agree, noting the Specification simply
indicates that a "property of the transparent layer of the first user terminal
indicates if the transparent layer of the first user terminal is shareable."
Spec. ,r 33. Paragraph 33 of the Specification does not disclose that the
4
Appeal 2018-005763
Application 14/494,987
property is stored in or included in the transparent layer. 4 Id. Thus, in view
of the Specification, the Examiner concludes that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the limitation at issue includes receiving information that
includes a property of the transparent layer indicating the transparent layer is
shareable. See Ans. 20-21. Appellant, in tum, fails to provide arguments
that establish the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonably broad when read
in light of the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See Reply Br. 2--4.
Branton, likewise, teaches that a user can control "[ v ]isibility of each
of a plurality of layers ... based on a layer attribute that includes at least
one of: ... access controls. Branton ,r 4 (italics added). In view of the
Examiner's interpretation of the limitation at issue in claim 1, we agree with
the Examiner's finding Branton's layer attribute that allows a user to control
layer visibility of each of a plurality of layers using access controls teaches
or at least suggests information that "includes a property of the transparent
layer indicating the transparent layer is shareable," as recited in claim 1.
Ans. 21 ("Branton discloses attributes and options that control sharing
( visibility: shown/hidden to others)").
4 Appellant fails to demonstrate that paragraph 33 provides support for
Appellant's amendment to claim 1 reciting the limitation at issue and more
particularly reciting that "a property of the transparent layer indicating the
transparent layer is shareable" is included in the transparent layer. See
Amendment 2. Paragraph 33 does not disclose the property is included in
information in the transparent layer, as recited in Appellant's amendment to
claim 1. Accordingly, in the event of further prosecution, the Examiner
should consider whether to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
5
Appeal 2018-005763
Application 14/494,987
Appellant next argues "Branton provides no explanation for how a
user indicates that a transparent layer is shareable when the user determines
whether layers they create can be viewed by others" because "there are
many ways for a user to determine whether a layer can be viewed by others
aside from including information in a transparent layer that indicates the
transparent layer is shareable." Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2.
We find this argument unpersuasive because we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Branton's user interface for controlling visibility of
individual layers teaches allowing the user to indicate that the layer is
sharable by allowing the user to make the layer visible to others. See
Ans. 21.
For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1,
and of independent claims 10, 16, and 25, which are not argued separately.
See Appeal Br. 6. Dependent claims 2, 4--9, 13-15, 17, 19-24, 28-36, and
36 are also not argued separately and so the rejections of these claims are
sustained for the same reasons given for independent claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 9.
6
Appeal 2018-005763
Application 14/494,987
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--10, 13-17,
19-25, and 28-36.
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
7