Ex Parte Ahn et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2019

14175557 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/175,557 02/07/2014
66547 7590 02/04/2019
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 2IOE
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JihyunAhn
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.
1398-629
(YPF20121 l-0003)
5191
EXAMINER
YANG,QIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
pto@farrelliplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIHYUN AHN, SORA KIM, JINYONG KIM,
HYUNKYOUNG KIM, HEEWOON KIM, and YUMI AHN 1
Appeal 2018-004937
Application 14/175,557
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. See App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004937
Application 14/175,557
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-8, 10-12, 14--23, 25-27, 29, and 30. Claims 9, 13, 24, and 28 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a mobile terminal responsive to criterion
associated with a user, such as a user's emotional state, age, and gender, in
responding to a user's query. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A mobile terminal supporting a v01ce talk function, the
terminal comprising:
a display unit including electrical circuitry;
an audio processing unit including electrical circuitry;
a processor in operable communication with the audio
processing unit and the display unit via the electrical circuitry
and configured to:
select content corresponding to a first criterion associated
with a user in response to a user input,
determine a content output scheme based on a second
criterion associated with the user,
change at least one of words constituting the selected
content, output speed of the selected content, and output size
of the selected content, based on the determined content
output scheme, and
output the changed content through the display unit and
audio processing unit,
2 We refer to the Specification, filed February 7, 2014 ("Spec."); the Final
Office Action, mailed August 10, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief,
filed January 16, 2018 ("App. Br."); and the Examiner's Answer, mailed
February 8, 2018 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2018-004937
Application 14/175,557
wherein the processor acquires the first criterion from
predetermined per-emotional state expression information
based on facial expressions acquired from a user's face image.
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Maes et al. US 2002/0135618 Al Sept. 26, 2002
Salmenkaita et al. EP 1 333 650 A2 Aug. 6, 2003
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1-8, 10-12, 14--23, 25-27, 29, and 30
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Salmenkaita
and Maes. Final Act. 2-10.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
1. Appellants contend Salmenkaita's disclosure of filtering website
URLs fails to teach or suggest changing words constituting a selected
content as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6.
2. Appellants contend Salmenkaita fails to "disclose, teach, or suggest
the claimed recitations 'select content corresponding to a first
criterion associated with a user in response to a user input' and
'determine a content output scheme based on a second criterion
associated with the user,' as recited in Claim 1." App. Br. 6-7.
3. Appellants contend Salmenkaita "does not disclose, teach, or suggest
changing the 'form' of the words that compose the content." App.
Br. 7.
3
Appeal2018-004937
Application 14/175,557
4. Appellants contend the Examiner improperly relied on the same
portions of Salmenkaita for teaching or suggesting both the
"determine" and "change" operations recited by the claims. Id.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-11; Ans. 2-10)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief ( Ans. 10-15). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
1. change at least one of words constituting the selected
content
The Examiner finds Salmenkaita' s disclosure of filtering URL
recommendations based on factors such as a user's age or family status
teaches or suggests the disputed requirement to change at least one of words
constituting the selected content, output speed of the selected content, and
output size of the selected content, based on the determined content output
scheme. Final Act. 3. Appellants argue "Salmenkaita ... merely discloses
changing a URL of a recommended website, but does not disclose, teach, or
suggest changing a document received from the website." App. Br. 6. The
Examiner responds, explaining the unfiltered URL recommendations
disclose selected content ( e.g., the URLs Mayoutart.com and Artsclub.com)
and the filtered recommendations (e.g., the URL Mayoutart.com) disclose
selected content having a changed word. Ans. 12.
4
Appeal2018-004937
Application 14/175,557
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. We
interpret the disputed limitation to require one of three changes be
performed, i.e., "change[,] at least one of[, (i)] words constituting the
selected content, [(ii)] output speed of the selected content, and [(iii)] output
size of the selected content, [ ( the change)] based on the determined content
output scheme." We agree with the Examiner that Salmenkaita's content
filtering results in and thereby teaches or suggests changing words
constituting the selected content. Contrary to Appellants' later argument
(App. Br. 7), claim 1 does not require changing the form of one or more
individual words constituting the selected content by, for example,
modifying the word or substituting a different word. Instead, under a broad,
but reasonable interpretation, eliminating a word changes the words
constituting the selected content thereby teaching or suggesting the disputed
limitation.
We also are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Salmenkaita
does not change a document received from the website identified by a URL.
App. Br. 6. The Examiner relies on Salmenkaita's recommendation
response message ofURLs, not the associated websites or returned website
documents, for teaching or suggesting the disputed words constituting the
selected content. Final Act. 3. Thus, Appellants' argument does not address
the Examiner's findings.
2. "select content corresponding to a first criterion associated
with a user in response to a user input" and
"determine a content output scheme based on a second
criterion associated with the user"
The Examiner finds Salmenkaita's selection of recommended content
corresponding to a current context (i.e., based on criteria), the current
5
Appeal2018-004937
Application 14/175,557
context being associated with a user in response to a user speech input,
teaches or suggests the select content operation. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
further finds Salmenkaita's wireless device display of recommendation
results, including (i) recommendations with no age restriction filter and
(ii) recommendations with a filter for family oriented subject matter as
depicted in Figures 3H and 3I, disclose output schemes that are based on
filters (i.e., a display output of recommendations limited to family oriented
subject matter) that, in tum, teach or suggest the disputed determine
operation. Id.
Appellants' contention 2 is unpersuasive because, other than allege
that Salmenkaita fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation, Appellants
fail to address the Examiner's findings. The Examiner's findings with
respect to the disputed limitation are rational; thus, based on Appellants'
naked allegations of error without further explanation, we do not see any
error in these findings. Final Act. 3. Merely reciting a claim limitation and
asserting it is not present falls short of identifying an error in the Examiner's
rejection as required on appeal. "Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself,
entitle an appellant to de nova review of all aspects of a rejection." Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (internal citations
omitted). Arguments must address the Examiner's action. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as
to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.")
3. "changing the form' of the words that compose the content"
Appellants' contention that the rejection is deficient because
Salmenkaita "does not disclose, teach, or suggest changing the 'form' of the
6
Appeal2018-004937
Application 14/175,557
words that compose the content" (App. Br. 7) is unpersuasive because the
claims do not require a change in form, only a change of words constituting
the selected content ( Claim 1 ). Thus, Appellants' argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the appealed claims. See In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCP A 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims
cannot be relied upon for patentability). Furthermore, Appellants fail to
address the Examiner's finding that Salmenkaita's filtering of
recommendations as depicted in Figures 3H and 3I provides different forms
of words teaching or suggesting the argued change of word form feature.
4. Reliance on a common portion of Salmenkaita for teaching or
suggesting both the "determine" and "change" operations
Appellants urge "the Board overturn the Examiner's rejection"
because
the Examiner cites the same passages ([0100] and FIG. 31) of
Salmenkaita in support of his rejection of the claimed recitations
"determine a content output scheme based on a second criterion
associated with the user" and "change at least one of words
constituting the selected content, output speed of the selected
content, and output size of the selected content, based on the
determined content output scheme."
App. Br. 7, citing Advisory Action dated October 20, 2017, pp. 2--4.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive for failure to identify
cognizable reversible error resulting from such reliance. For example,
Appellants fail to identify a specific deficiency of the cited portion of
Salmenkaita to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. As explained
above, argument must address the Examiner's findings. It is insufficient to
merely identify a claim limitation and assert it is not present.
7
Appeal2018-004937
Application 14/175,557
For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, independent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Salmenkaita and Maes together with the rejection of dependent claims 2-8,
10-12, 14, 15, 17-23, 25-27, 29, and 30 which are not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8, 10-12, 14--
23, 25-27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8