Ex Parte CHO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 4, 2019

13238927 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/238,927 09/21/2011 66547 7590 02/06/2019 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 2IOE Melville, NY 11747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hyung-rae CHO 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. 784-134 (SH-39279) 5794 EXAMINER BROOKS, DAVID T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/06/2019 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 HYUNG-RAE CHO and HYUN-JOO OH Appeal 2018-003464 Application 13/238,927 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 5-12, 14, 15, 17, 21-23, 27-32, and 34--45, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1. Appeal2018-003464 Application 13/238,927 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention According to the Specification, the "invention relates generally to a method and apparatus for controlling a network-based device and computer readable medium storing the method." Spec. 1: 14--15. 2 The Specification explains that the method includes "selecting at least one device based on at least one outdoor environment information; and generating control information regarding the selected at least one device based on the at least one outdoor environment information." Id. Abstract; see id. at 2:16-3:19. Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method of a device control apparatus for controlling at least one device placed in a local area network, the method comprising: receiving outdoor environment information related to an area external to the local area network, from at least one network interface unit of a service provider; analyzing content of the received outdoor environment information to detect a keyword corresponding to the outdoor environment information; selecting the at least one device placed in the local area network based on the detected keyword; 2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the Specification, filed September 21, 2011; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action, mailed February 27, 2017; "Adv. Act." for the Advisory Action, mailed June 13, 2017; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed August 9, 2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed December 12, 2017; and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed February 12, 2018. 2 Appeal2018-003464 Application 13/238,927 generating control information regarding the at least one selected device; transmitting the control information to the at least one selected device; and selecting, based on usage history information of the at least one selected device, a user device located external to the local area network to transmit guide information generated based on the control information; transmitting the guide information to the selected user device. App. Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal As evidence ofunpatentability under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a), the Examiner relies on the following prior art: Meade, II ("Meade") Lee US 2003/0071117 Al US 2004/0202206 Al Requena et al. ("Requena") US 2006/0059003 Al Shamoon et al. ("Shamoon") US 2006/0105760 Al Ollis et al. ("Ollis") US 2008/0147205 Al Subbloie US 2009/0083167 Al The Rejections on Appeal Apr. 17, 2003 Oct. 14, 2004 Mar. 16, 2006 May 18, 2006 June 19, 2008 Mar. 26, 2009 Claims 1, 5, 6, 21, 23, 27, 28, 35, 38, 40, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Subbloie, Shamoon, Requena, and Ollis. Final Act. 8-38. Claims 7-12, 29-32, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Subbloie, Shamoon, Requena, Ollis, and Lee. Final Act. 3 8--49. 3 Appeal2018-003464 Application 13/238,927 Claims 15, 17, 22, 36, and 43--45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Subbloie, Shamoon, Requena, Meade, and Lee. Final Act. 49--80. Claims 14, 37, 39, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Subbloie, Shamoon, Requena, Ollis, and Meade. Final Act. 80-86. ANALYSIS We have reviewed theÂ§ 103(a) rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we concur with the Examiner's conclusions concerning unpatentability under Â§ 103(a). We adopt the Examiner's findings and reasoning for theÂ§ 103(a) rejections in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 8-86), Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and Answer (Ans. 3-7). We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments. The Â§ 103 (a) Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 6, 21, 23, 27, 28, 35, 38, 40, and 42 INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 21, AND 23 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 21, and 23 because Shamoon and Requena do not teach or suggest the following limitations in each claim: "selecting, based on usage history information of the at least one selected device, a user device located external to the local area network to transmit guide information generated based on the control information"; and "transmitting the guide information to the selected user device." See App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2-5. Specifically, Appellants assert that in Requena "a first device may be selected to provide a service to a second device, based on context 4 Appeal2018-003464 Application 13/238,927 information of the first device," and "[t]he first device is not selected to provide a service to a second device, based on context information of the second device." App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. Appellants also assert that Requena ( 1) "actually describes that the first device is selected to transmit notifications/events (i.e. guide information), to the second device, based on the context information of the first device," and (2) "merely describes context information including usage history information." App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2 ( emphasis omitted), 4. In addition, Appellants contend that Shamoon fails to teach or suggest "how the usage history information affects the linkage relationships among the device control apparatus, the user device, and the selected devices." Reply Br. 4. Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because they attack the references individually, while the Examiner relies on the combined disclosures in the references to teach or suggest the disputed limitations in claims 1, 21, and 23. See Final Act. 10-14, 19--23, 28-32; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3-7. Where a rejection rests on the combined disclosures in the references, an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Ans. 3 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981), and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Here, the Examiner correctly finds that Shamoon discloses: ( 1) selecting a user/ controller device located external to a local area network to transmit guide information generated based on control information, and (2) transmitting guide information to the selected user/controller device. See Final Act. 10-12, 19-22, 28-30; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3--4. In particular, Shamoon describes a system for monitoring and remotely controlling 5 Appeal2018-003464 Application 13/238,927 various devices in an environment, e.g., a residential environment. Shamoon ,r,r 12, 20-22, 67-70, 73-74. The system includes a base control unit and multiple remote control units, e.g., cellular telephones. Id. ,r,r 20-22, 29, 39-40, 48, Abstract, Figs. 1--4. The base control unit monitors device sensors in a particular area, e.g., to allow "for control of air dampers, water control valves, electronic windows, vents and other such devices utilized within a typical residential environment," such as "refrigeration, water heating, security cameras, [and] illumination devices." Id. ,r,r 20, 30-31, 67-70, 73-74, Abstract. The base control unit transmits status information for the devices to a remote control unit to permit the operator to issue a command to a selected/controlled device. Id. ,r,r 12, 39, 48, 53-54, 69, 72-73. The base station picks a remote control unit to receive status information based on predetermined rules, e.g., a designation as a "master" unit or segregation into classes. Id. ,r,r 48, 73. For example, when a measured characteristic exceeds a predetermined limit, the base control unit picks a remote control unit to receive status information, e.g., an alarm signal. Shamoon ,r,r 69, 73; see id. ,r,r 40, 53-54, 72. The status information gives the operator "the ability to take corrective action." Id. ,r 69; see id. ,r,r 72-73. Thus, the operator may issue "a command from the remote control unit" to activate a selected/controlled device, "such as the HVAC unit, a water heater, a refrigeration appliance or other discrete device remotely." Id. ,r,r 69, 72; see id. ,r 73. Shamoon's status information corresponds to the claimed guide information because the status information permits an operator of a user/controller device to issue a command to a selected/controlled device. See Spec. 6:1-10, 15:6-24; see also Final Act. 10-12, 19-22, 28-30. 6 Appeal2018-003464 Application 13/238,927 Hence, the Examiner correctly finds that Shamoon's system "provides for selecting a [user/controller] device to output guide information to based on the context of the controlled device." Adv. Act. 2. In addition, the Examiner correctly finds that Requena discloses selecting a user/controller device to receive guide information based on usage-history information of a selected/controlled device. See Final Act. 13-14, 22-23, 30-32; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3---6. In particular, Requena describes a system for selecting a controlled device to perform a service for a controller device based on context information for the controlled device. Requena ,r,r 13, 15-18, 49, 59, Abstract. The context information provides information about the controlled device and may include usage-history information "that lists each user using the [controlled] device and/or service, when the [ controlled] device and/or service is used, what control point [controller device] is used to request the service, etc." Id. ,r,r 9, 49, 59, Abstract. A controller device may select a controlled device based on its context information, e.g., usage-history information. Id. ,r,r 13, 15-18, 59. Further, a controlled device may send context-triggered messages, e.g., "reminders or notifications," to a controller device. Id. ,r 59. Thus, a controlled device selects a controller device to receive guide information ("reminders or notifications") based on context information, e.g., usage- history information. Id. As the Examiner correctly reasons, "this triggering based on usage history context is a selection based on usage history." Ans. 4; see Adv. Act. 2. Appellants argue that the claims "do[] not require that the first device is selected to transmit notifications/events (i.e. guide information), to the second device, based on the context information of the first device." 7 Appeal2018-003464 Application 13/238,927 Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, the claims "recite[] selecting a user device located external to the local area network ( a second device is selected) to transmit guide information generated based on the control information, based on usage history information of the at least one selected device (the information of the first device)." Id. at 3. Appellants' arguments about what the claims require overlook the explicit claim language "transmitting the guide information to the selected user device." See App. Br. 15, 18-19 (Claims App.). According to that claim language, the user/controller device receives guide information from the device-control apparatus. Consistent with that claim language, the Specification explains that the device-control apparatus transmits guide information to the user/controller device to permit the operator to issue a command related to the received guide information. See, e.g., Spec. 15:6-24, 20:6-11, 23:11-13 (claim 3), 25:25-27 (claim 19), 26:27-29 (claim 25), Figs. 1-2, 5, 10-11. For instance, the guide information may ask whether the operator wants to activate a selected/controlled device. Id. at 6: 1--4, 15:8-11. Appellants do not direct us to any part of the Specification allegedly supporting a requirement that the user/controller device transmits guide information. See App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 1-5. To the contrary, in the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter, Appellants cite Specification page 15, lines 6-16, and Figure 5, step S503, to explain the disputed "selecting" limitations. App. Br. 3-5. That part of the Specification explains that "[i]n step S503, the processor 250" in the device-control apparatus "transmits guide information ... to the user [controller] device 130_5 of a selected [controlled] device." Spec. 15:6-7. That part also explains that "the user [controller] device 130_5 may be 8 Appeal2018-003464 Application 13/238,927 selected based on ... usage history information regarding the selected [ controlled] device" or location or attribute information for the selected/controlled device. Id. at 15: 13-15; see id. at 10:2-12. That part does not indicate that the user/controller device transmits guide information. See id. at 15:6-16. For the reasons discussed above, the combined disclosures in the references teach or suggest the disputed limitations in claims 1, 21, and 23. See Final Act. 10-12, 19-22, 28-30; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3--4; Shamoon ,r,r 12, 20-22, 29-31, 39--40, 48, 53-54, 67-70, 72-74, Abstract, Figs. 1--4; Requena ,r,r 9, 13, 15-18, 49, 59, Abstract. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims underÂ§ 103(a). Thus, we sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 21, and 23. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 5, 6, 27, 28, 35, 38, 40, AND 42 Appellants do not argue patentability separately for dependent claims 5, 6, 27, 28, 35, 38, 40, and 42. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 1---6. Thus, we sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons as claims 1, 21, and 23. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). TheÂ§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 7-12, 14, 15, 17, 22, 29-32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, and 43-45 INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 15, 22, AND 36 For independent claims 15, 22, and 36, Appellants assert that Meade and Lee "fail to cure the above-described deficiencies of' the references cited against independent claims 1, 21, and 23. As explained above, however, the combined disclosures in the references teach or suggest the disputed limitations in claims 1, 21, and 23. Thus, we sustain theÂ§ 103(a) 9 Appeal2018-003464 Application 13/238,927 rejection of claims 15, 22, and 3 6 for the same reasons as claims 1, 21, and 23. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). DEPENDENT CLAIMS 7-12, 14, 17, 29-32, 34, 37, 39, 41, AND 43--45 Appellants do not argue patentability separately for dependent claims 7-12, 14, 17, 29-32, 34, 37, 39, 41, and 43--45. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 1---6. Thus, we sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejections of these dependent claims for the same reasons as the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 5-12, 14, 15, 17, 21-23, 27-32, and 34--45. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 10