Ex Parte Forsyth

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2017

13942776 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2017)

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.
13/942,776 07/16/2013 John Matthew Forsyth 67674-US-CON 4404
100809 7590 01/26/2017
Core Wireless Licensing Ltd
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 1300
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TU X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2017 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):
ipadmin-core@core-wireless.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN MATTHEW FORSYTH
Appeal 2016-006143
Application 13/942,7761
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 13—19 and 21—35, which
are all of the claims pending on appeal. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Core Wireless
Licensing S.A.R.L. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed November 24, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed May 27, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed March 30, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed March
20, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed July 16, 2013
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-006143
Application 13/942,776
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a “mobile device with user-selectable
content displayed during idle time.” Spec., Title.
Claims 13, 23, and 27 are independent. Claim 13 illustrates
Appellant’s invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics:
13. A mobile device comprising:
a processor;
a memory coupled to the processor, the processor
configured to:
provide a user interface to customize a setting of
an idle screen of the mobile device to display information
from at least one remote information resource on the idle
screen based on at least one preference of the user, and
automatically receive updated information from
the at least one remote information resource while the
idle screen is displayed and to display the updated
information on the idle screen based on the at least one
preference of the user.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 13—19 and 22—35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Martin, Jr. et al., (US 6,363,419 Bl; issued
Mar. 26, 2002) (“Martin”). Final Act. 2—A.
(2) Claim 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin and Barnes, Jr. (US 7,133,897 Bl; issued Nov. 7,
2006) (“Barnes”). Final Act. 4—5.
2
Appeal 2016-006143
Application 13/942,776
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 13, 23, and 27, the Examiner finds
Martin teaches Appellant’s claimed “mobile device,” shown in Figure 1,
including: (1) “a memory” and (2) “a processor configured to:
[1] provide a user interface to customize a setting of
an idle screen of the mobile device to display information from
at least one remote information resource on the idle screen
based on at least one preference of the user (col. 4 lines 15—35),
and
[2] automatically receive updated information from
the at least one remote information resource while the idle
screen is displayed and to display the updated information on
the idle screen based on the at least one preference of the user
(col. 6 lines 50-65).
Final Act. 3 (citing Martin 4:15—35, 6:50-65).
Martin’s Figure 1 shows a mobile device 106 for displaying idle
content information during idle times, as reproduced below.
AN, ? 54
104
A 7"
PSsN y
l_>-
141
/
104
-' -4 V-"
htemst ,
(fT AvAvA A
y
\ 112 \
y
t
J
6AiRN:ET*7|-^J }yy y
*~y
Martin’s Figure 1 shows Appellant’s claimed “mobile device” 106 for
displaying idle content information during idle times.
3
Appeal 2016-006143
Application 13/942,776
Appellant argues Martin does not teach [1] “providing] a user
interface to customize a setting of an idle screen of the mobile device” and
[2] “displaying] the updated information on the idle screen based on the at
least one preference of the user” as recited in claim 13, and similarly recited
in claims 23 and 27. App. Br. 5—8; Reply Br. 2—6. According to Appellant,
“idle screen information [of Martin] is determined by an idle content address
identifier that is provided by the network” and the “idle content address
identifier may link to content information that a wireless network provider
wishes to have displayed on the mobile device during idle time,” but that is
not the same as providing a user the ability to customize idle screen settings
as recited in claims 13, 23, and 27. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3 (citing Martin
7:39-43).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is a question of fact. See Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A claim is anticipated only if each and every element
as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described in a
single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
As shown in Martin’s Figure 1, idle content information is stored
remote web servers 112, shown in Fig. 1. Ans. 2—3 (citing Martin 3:55—59).
A browser program (i.e., user interface) is then used to access idle content
information stored in remote web servers 112, 114 to display on the mobile
device during idle times. Ans. 2—3 (citing Martin 6:50-59, 7:6—12). As
recognized by the Examiner, when the user accesses specific information
from remote web servers 112, 114 and enables that specific information to
be display on a user’s mobile device during an idle time, such a disclosure
4
Appeal 2016-006143
Application 13/942,776
can be considered as Appellant’s claimed “customizing] a setting of an idle
screen of the mobile device to display information from at least one remote
information resource on the idle screen based on at least one preference of
the user,” as recited in claims 13, 23, and 27.
In the Reply, Appellant further argues Martin “does not mention user
involvement in selection of idle screen content” and according to Martin,
“the browser fetches idle content information in the background based on the
network-provided idle content address identifier.” Reply Br. 5—6. We
disagree. According to Martin,
If the idle timer expires 232 while the mobile device is in the
default status display 250, then the mobile device enters an idle
content display state 230. The idle content display state 230
provides the wireless network service provider with an
opportunity to provide information (“content”) to the mobile
service subscribers while the subscribers are not using their
mobile devices (“idle”). The idle content may comprise
information about the mobile service such as technical support
(numbers, email addresses or links), current network
conditions, newly available features, etc. Alternatively, the idle
content may comprise personalized information, such as a
reminder that there is a waiting voice mail/email, news
headlines that may be of interest the user, updated
traffic/weather report as well as advertising about the mobile
service provider’s service such as special pricing offers or
advertising from third parties.
Martin 6:10-25 (emphasis added). In other words, the user can select and
personalize the idle screen content. Martin 4:15—35, 6:10—25.
The actual information content displayed by the browser
program may be set specifying a default idle content address.
In one embodiment, the default idle content address is provided
to the browser program in the form of a Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) or Uniform Resource Locator (URL) that
5
Appeal 2016-006143
Application 13/942,776
designates where encoded information may be accessed [via the
a wireless network],
Martin 7:32—37.
In addition, the idle content to be displayed during idle times can also
be automatically updated from the at least one remote information resource
(i.e., proxy server 114) by periodically “pushing” information to the mobile
device. Martin 6:60-67.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not demonstrated Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claims 13, 23, and 27, and their respective dependent claims
14—19, 22, 24—26, and 28—35, which Appellant does not argue separately.
With respect to claim 21, Appellant reiterates the same arguments
presented against claim 13. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 21.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has not demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting: (1) claims 13—19 and 22—35 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Martin; and (2) claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martin and Barnes.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 13—19
and 21—35.
6
Appeal 2016-006143
Application 13/942,776
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