Ex Parte Dempski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2015

12707128 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015)

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. 12/707,128 02/17/2010 Kelly L. Dempski 10022/1661 2006 28164 7590 03/27/2015 BGL/Accenture - Chicago BRINKS GILSON & LIONE P O BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 EXAMINER SAEED, USMAAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KELLY DEMPSKI and BRANDON HARVEY ____________________ Appeal 2012-006347 Application 12/707,128 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, THU A. DANG, and WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-006347 Application 12/707,128 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system for distributed information presentation and interaction (Spec. ¶ 3). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A system comprising: a plurality of output devices arranged to produce a respective output portion of a system output, each respective output portion being defined by context information, the context information being indicative of present state of all of the output devices in the system; a plurality of application processors, each application processor configured to process one or more respective application programs, each application processor responsive to the context information and coupled with an associated respective output device for controlling the associated respective output device in producing the respective output portion; and a state server in data communication with the plurality of application processors to provide the context information to the plurality of application processors, the context information including update state information received by the state server in an automatically generated state change message from one of the application processors and provided to all the other application processors by the state server. Appeal 2012-006347 Application 12/707,128 3 C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kondo US 2001/0034652 A1 Oct. 25, 2001 Salesky US 2004/0080504 A1 Apr. 29, 2004 Apple US 7,082,398 B1 July 25, 2006 Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Apple, Salesky, and Kondo. II. ISSUES The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Apple, Salesky, and Kondo teaches or would have suggested “output devices arranged to produce a respective output portion of a system output,” each output portion “being defined by context information, the context information being indicative of present state of all of the output devices in the system,” wherein “the context information including update state information received by the state server in an automatically generated state change message from one of the application processors and provided to all the other application processors by the state server,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Apple 1. Apple discloses a system for dynamically displaying graphic identifier information, having input ports to receive feeds, and a plurality of display data processors to form display signals (Abst.), wherein each display data processor includes a corresponding monitor (col. 9, ll. 46–57). Appeal 2012-006347 Application 12/707,128 4 2. A master control computer system schedules programs that the display data processors execute at specified times (col. 10, ll. 36–44), wherein the master control computer system stores a schedule indicating which displays appear on which portions of the video wall during each time period (col. 10, ll. 63–66), and to change a display, the master control computer system sends messages directing the appropriate display data processor to construct a new display (col. 11, ll. 1–5). Salesky 3. Salesky discloses updating attendees’ displays with the image created by the presenter ([0002]), wherein the presenter client takes period “snap- shots” and breaks the screen shot into smaller blocks, the blocks that have been changed are passed to a conference server ([0057]), and the conference server then sends the changed blocks to all attendee client computers ([0059]). Kondo 4. Kondo discloses transmitting an update instruction signal with a timing for changing updating conditions ([0050]). IV. ANALYSIS Appellants contend “Apple relates to a video wall for displaying financial information” but “content is not the same thing as context” (App. Br. 8). Appellants also contend Apple does not “express the notion of the routing switches or the video wall processors providing update state information that is communicated to other application processors” (id.). Although Appellants concede Salesky discloses a “server” that “conveys the changed blocks to the attendee clients to update the image,” Appellants contend Salesky’s server differs from “the state server as claimed” which Appeal 2012-006347 Application 12/707,128 5 “receives automatically generated state change messages from the application processors” (App. Br. 9). Appellants then contend “the delivering content as taught by Kondo cannot be read to be context” (id.). However, the Examiner finds “Apple teaches [a] display wall being defined by context information” since “Examiner interprets the current financial display on a video wall as the present state of all of the output devices” (Ans. 18, emphasis omitted). In particular, “Examiner interprets these messages containing schedule information indicating which displays appear on which portions of video wall 2270 during each time period as the claimed context information” (Ans. 19, emphasis omitted). Furthermore, “Examiner interprets the schedule information as containing the update information since the master control computer system sends messages based on schedule information to appropriate displays to construct new displays” (id.). The Examiner also finds Salesky teaches “changed blocks or update information is being received by the server from the present client computer and is being sent from the server to all the attendee client computers” (id.), wherein “Examiner interprets the attendee client computers as plurality of other application processors and the presenter client computer as one of the application processors” (Ans. 19–20, emphasis omitted). The Examiner then finds “Kondo teaches state change messages being transmitted from host server 1 to the transmit server 2 and then simultaneously to the display terminals 3” and thus “Kondo teaches automatically generated state change message by use of publishing conditions” (Ans. 20, emphasis omitted). Appeal 2012-006347 Application 12/707,128 6 We agree with the Examiner’s initial factual findings, and find no error with the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the combination of Apple, Salesky, and Kondo. We note that although Appellants contend Apple, Salesky, and Kondo do not disclose the claimed features (App. Br. 8–9), the Examiner rejects the claims as being obvious over the combination of the references. The test for obviousness is not what Apple individually discloses, but what the references combined would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To determine whether the claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Apple, Salesky, and Kondo, we give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As an initial matter of claim construction, we note that claim 1 merely defines “context information” as information/data indicative of the present state of all of the output devices. Further, we do not find (and Appellants do not cite to) any specific definition for the term in the Specification. Thus, we give the term “context information” its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as information or data that could indicate the state of the output devices. Apple discloses dynamically displaying graphic identifier information, wherein a plurality of processors are provided to form display signals, with each processor comprising corresponding monitors to display the corresponding information (FF 1). In Apple, a master control computer system stores a schedule indicating which displays appear on which portions of the video wall during each time period, and to change a display, the Appeal 2012-006347 Application 12/707,128 7 master control computer system tells the appropriate processor to construct a new display (FF 2). We agree with the Examiner’s finding Apple’s “current financial display on a video wall as the present state of all of the output devices” (Ans. 18, emphasis omitted), and Apple’s “messages containing schedule information indicating which displays appear on which portions of video wall 2270 during each time period as the claimed context information” (Ans. 19, emphasis omitted). That is, we agree with the Examiner that Apple discloses displaying output data defined by “context information” including “update” information, wherein, in Apple, the display indicates the state of the processors/output devices (id.). Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding Apple at least suggests “output devices” which provide display data to display output portions “defined by context information” that is “indicative of present state of all of the output devices in the system,” and that includes “update state information,” as required by claim 1. We note Appellants have not pointed to a limiting definition for “context information” in the Specification, or where the plain language of claim 1 precludes the Examiner’s broad interpretation. Further, by contending Apple discloses “a video wall for displaying financial information” which is “content” information and not “context” information (App. Br. 8), Appellants appear to be contending Apple’s information being displayed differ from the claimed “context” information. However, the question we address here is whether the displaying claimed “context” information would have been obvious over the combination of the references, i.e., if the references combined would have suggested displaying Appeal 2012-006347 Application 12/707,128 8 such context information to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck at 1091. We find that, even if arguendo Apple’s displayed information were different from that of Appellants because Apple’s information is not “context” information indicating the state of the output devices (App. Br. 8), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to display context information as well as content information. Appellants have presented no evidence that displaying context information instead of, or in addition to, content information was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding Apple’s “schedule information” as “containing the update information since the master control computer system sends messages based on schedule information to appropriate displays to construct a new display” (Ans. 19, emphasis omitted). That is, Apple discloses or at least suggests that the information defining the output portions include information instructing the appropriate output device to update/construct a new display (FF 2). Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s interpretation that “update state information” encompasses Apple’s information indicating the updating of the states of the output devices (Ans. 19). Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding Salesky teaches “changed blocks or update information is being received by the server from Appeal 2012-006347 Application 12/707,128 9 the present client computer and is being sent from the server to all the attendee client computers” (Ans. 19, emphasis omitted). In particular, we agree with the Examiner’s finding Salesky’s “attendee client computers as plurality of other application processors” and Salesky’s “presenter client computer as one of the application processors” as claimed (Ans. 19–20, emphasis omitted). That is, Salesky discloses a conference server in data communication with a presenter client/application processor and a plurality of attendee clients/application processors, wherein update information is received by the conference server from the presenter client and provided to all of the attendee clients (FF 3). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding “Kondo teaches state change messages being transmitted from host server 1 to the transmit server 2 and then simultaneously to the display terminals 3” and thus “Kondo teaches automatically generated state change message by use of publishing conditions” (Ans. 20, emphasis omitted). In particular, Kondo discloses transmitting an update information upon occurrence of updating conditions (FF 4). We find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Kondo for the teaching/suggestion of the automatic generation of a change/update message/information. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Apple, Salesky, and Kondo would have at least suggested the limitations of claim 1. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–8 depending therefrom and falling therewith (App. Br. 10), over Apple, Salesky, and Kondo. As for claims 9 and 20, Appellants contend “delivering content as taught by Kondo cannot be read to automatically provide state change Appeal 2012-006347 Application 12/707,128 10 messages to a synchronizer based on any local state change at the processor . . .” or “be read to send messages automatically based on state changes . . .” (App. Br. 11). However, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Apple, Salesky, and Kondo would at least have suggested such limitations (20–22). In particular, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding Apple’s “schedule information as containing the update/state change message information” and “the master control computer system as the claimed synchronizer” (Ans. 21, emphasis omitted). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding Salesky’s server also functions as a “synchronizer” that “changes the states of the attendee client computers based on the changes on the present[] client computer,” and the Examiner’s finding “Kondo teaches automatically generated state change message by use of publishing conditions …” (id.). Thus, we also find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 20 over Apple, Salesky, and Kondo. Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 20 and claims 10–19 depending from claim 9 and falling therewith (App. Br. 11) over Apple, Salesky, and Kondo. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.1 1 In the event of further prosecution of this application, we direct the Examiner’s attention to the question of whether the claims are patent- eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary examination instructions on patent eligible subject matter. See 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618 (Dec. 16, 2014) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 1); “Preliminary Examination Appeal 2012-006347 Application 12/707,128 11 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 tj Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,” Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014. Abstract ideas have been identified by the courts by way of example, including fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea ‘of itself,’ and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l. 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355–56 (2014). All claims on appeal appear to be directed to producing/outputting particular type of data intended for human perception. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 1213.02.