Ex Parte Brodersen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12171250 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/171,250 07/10/2008 Rainer BRODERSEN
133036 7590 08/31/2016
DLA Piper LLP (US)
2000 University A venue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
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.
337722-309500/P6890US1 2620
EXAMINER
BADAWI, ANGIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
AppleProsAdmin@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAINER BRODERSEN, AMANDEEP JAW A,
ALAN CANNISTRARO, DANIEL DA VIS, and
JEFFREY L. ROBBIN
Appeal2015-005918
Application 12/171,250
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 25-36. Final Act. 1. Claims 1-24 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Bruck (US 2006/0085819 Al; publ. Apr. 20, 2006). Ans. 2-3.
Claims 26-30 and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bruck and Tuli (US 7,356,570 Bl; iss. Apr. 8, 2008). Ans. 4--
7.
We reverse.
Appeal2015-005918
Application 12/171,250
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "providing or synchronizing an input
user interface on a client device that is associated with an active input user
interface on a server device." Spec. i-f 2. Claim 25 is illustrative and
reproduced below, with the disputed limitation emphasized:
25. A method for interacting with a server, the method
compnsmg:
in the server, performing operations for:
presenting a user input interface on a display
coupled to the server, the user input interface comprising a listing
of characters and an entry box;
wherein the server is configured to enter a
character in the entry box in the user input interface by either of
receiving direction indications from a client
to navigate a cursor sequentially through the listing of
characters on the display to a character that is selected to be
entered into the entry box; and
receiving a selection indication from the
client to cause the selected character to be entered into the entry
box; or
receiving a character that was sent from the
client to the server; and
causing a corresponding character to be
entered into the entry box without receiving direction indications
or a selection indication.
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 25 AND 31 BY BRUCK
The Examiner finds Bruck anticipates claim 25. Ans. 3. However,
the Examiner does not cite Bruck for disclosing (claim 25) "receiving a
character that was sent from the client to the server; and causing a
corresponding character to be entered into the entry box without receiving
direction indications or a selection indication." See Ans. 3; see also Ans. 9
2
Appeal2015-005918
Application 12/171,250
("Since the first limitation was taught by Bruck, the second or limitation
was not required to be addressed by Bruck"). In other words, the
Examiner construes the "or" limitation in the claim as a choice between two
alternatives, and finds Bruck discloses the server is configured to enter a
character in the entry box in the user input interface only by the first
alternative. Ans. 8-11.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Bruck is limited to describing navigating through characters
presented on a screen and selecting characters for entry, i.e., in
which an interface is only capable of one form of character
entry. Bruck does not describe or suggest a server that provides
a single entry box into which characters can be entered using
either of operations [1] or [2].
App. Br. 9.
The present appeal turns on whether the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 25 requires "the server is configured to enter a
character in the entry box in the user input interface by ... rece1vmg a
character that was sent from the client to the server; and causing a
corresponding character to be entered into the entry box without receiving
direction indications or a selection indication." We conclude that it does.
Appellants' Specification (i-f 11) discloses:
The method includes broadcasting a signal from a server device
to a client device when the server device presents an active user
input interface on a display screen, wherein the active user input
interface illustrates input from a user via a remote control that is
separate from the client device, wherein the remote control
requires multiple steps for inputting a character. The multiple
steps are represented typically by a remote that does not have a
QWERTY keyboard and that requires a user to navigate through
a user interface to select characters for input.
Appellants' Specification (i-f 11) (emphasis added) further discloses:
3
Appeal2015-005918
Application 12/171,250
Next, the method includes receiving character input sent from the
connected client device to the server device via the client user
input interface, wherein the character is received via a single
step. This is typically represented by the client device having an
interface where each letter of a full keyboard can be accessed
directly, either via dedicated physical keys or touch input.
Similarly, Figure 3A depicts a server device with an active user input
interface on a display screen accepting character entry via multiple steps
from a remote control. Spec. i-fi-1 43--44. Figure 3B, which is associated with
the user input interface of Figure 3A, depicts character entry via a single
step. Spec. i-fi-145. Figures 3A and 3B are described as a single embodiment.
Spec. i-fi-146 ("in this embodiment"), 47, 48. The additional Figures in the
Specification are similarly described. See Figs. 2, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B,
,-r,-r 34--40, 49---69.
Taken together, these disclosures in the Specification describe that the
server accepts character entry via multiple steps (navigation/selection) and
also accepts character entry via a single step (full keyboard).
In light of the Specification, we find that the Examiner's interpretation
of the claim language as not requiring "the server is configured to enter a
character in the entry box in the user input interface by ... receiving a
character that was sent from the client to the server; and causing a
corresponding character to be entered into the entry box without receiving
direction indications or a selection indication" is overly broad and
unreasonable. Cf Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d.
1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (construing "or" and "either" as designating
alternatives where there was no indication the patentee intended its usage to
embrace "and").
4
Appeal2015-005918
Application 12/171,250
While we are mindful not to limit claims to preferred embodiments, in
this case nothing in the intrinsic record suggests Appellants contemplated a
server configured to enter a character in the entry box in the user input
interface by only one of the claimed methods. We, therefore, find that the
correct broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language requires a
server configured to enter a character by "receiving a character that was sent
from the client to the server; and causing a corresponding character to be
entered into the entry box without receiving direction indications or a
selection indication."
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 25. 1
For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 31, which also recites the disputed limitation.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 26-30 AND 32-36 OVER BRUCK
AND Tuu
The Examiner finds Bruck and Tuli teach all limitations of claims 26-
30 and 32-36. Ans. 4--7.
Claims 26-30 depend from claim 25, and claims 32-36 depend from
claim 31. The Examiner does not further address the disputed limitation.
See Ans. 4--7.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 26-
30 and 32-36 for reasons discussed above with respect to claims 25 and 31.
1 Appellants further argue that Tuli also does not describe the disputed
limitation. See App. Br. 11. Whether the collective teachings of Bruck and
Tuli teach the disputed limitation is not before us.
5
Appeal2015-005918
Application 12/171,250
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 25-36 is reversed.
REVERSED
6