Ex Parte Guilleminot et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2017

13743483 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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.
13/743,483 01/17/2013 Raphael Guilleminot 2012P02112US 4470
46726 7590 12/21/2017
RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
KLICOS, NICHOLAS GEORGE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2017 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):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAPHAEL GUILLERMINOT, PHILLIP MONTANYE,
GRAHAM SADTLER, and ROBERT TANNEN
Appeal 2017-001327
Application 13/743,483
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-37, which constitute all claims pending in this application. Claims
App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as BSH Hausgerate GmbH. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001327
Application 13/743,483
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
method and system for controlling a domestic appliance via gestural inputs
on a user interface (300). Spec. ^ 1, Fig. 2. In particular, upon detecting the
selection of a user input component (400) on a first screen (600), a controller
(500) correlates the selected input component (400) with a corresponding
gesture type from a plurality of gesture types (e.g. swipe up/down, swipe
left/right). Id. 23, 33, Fig. 8. Upon determining that a treatment
parameter has already been programmed to the correlated gesture type, the
controller (500) displays a second screen (602) associated with the gesture
type. Id. ^ 24. Otherwise, the controller (500) programs the treatment
parameter associated with the gesture type. Id. 25-29.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for controlling a domestic appliance to treat
contents, said domestic appliance having a display, a controller,
and at least one user input component, the method comprising:
displaying a first screen on the display;
detecting user input to the at least one user input
component;
correlating the user input to a gesture type with the
controller;
determining the gesture type from among a plurality of
gesture types with the controller;
determining whether at least one treatment parameter has
been programmed to the controller; and
displaying a second screen on the display according to
the gesture type determined by the controller and whether the
controller determined that the at least one treatment parameter
has been programmed,
wherein said second screen is different from said first
screen.
2
Appeal 2017-001327
Application 13/743,483
Prior Art Relied upon
Anderson et al.
(hereinafter “Anderson”)
US 2010/0147823 Al June 17,2010
Satanek US 2011/0062143 Al Mar. 17,2011
Wilson et al.
(hereinafter “Wilson”)
US 2011/0090255 Al Apr. 21,2011
Oh et al.
(hereinafter “Oh”)
US 2012/0069257 A1 Mar. 22, 2012
Hallford et al.
(hereinafter “Hallford”)
US 2013/0141371 Al June 6, 2013
Brasseur et al.
(hereinafter “Brasseur”)
US 2014/0317501 Al Oct. 23, 2014
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-23 and 25-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Anderson, Hallford, and
Satanek. Final Act. 5-15.
Claims 30, 31, and 33-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Anderson, Hallford, and
Brasseur. Final Act. 15-20.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Anderson, Hallford, and Oh. Final
Act. 20.
Claims 32 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Anderson, Hallford, Brasseur, and
Wilson. Final Act. 20-22.
3
Appeal 2017-001327
Application 13/743,483
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8-21, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-12.2 We are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
hereinafter, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 2-21, Ans. 2-35. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
First, Appellants argue that the combination of Anderson, Hallford,
and Satanek does not teach or suggest “determining the gesture type from
among a plurality of gesture types with the controller,” as recited in
independent claim 1. App. Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellants argue that
Hallford teaches detecting one specific gesture, but does not consider that “a
plurality of gesture types may be presented for determination.” Id. at 10
(citing Hallford ^ 25, 26).
This argument is not persuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner,
Hallford’s disclosure of inputting on a user interface various gestures (swipe
up/down, swipe left/right) to select, activate, and open a desired application
depending on the input gesture teaches determining a particular gesture from
a plurality of gestures. Ans. 19 (citing Hallford 24, 25, Figs. 4-11).
2 Rather than reiterate all the arguments of Appellants and all the Examiner’s
findings, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 27, 2016) (“App. Br.”), the
Reply Brief (filed October 31, 2016) (“Reply Br.”), and the Answer (mailed
September 9, 2016) (“Ans.”) for the respective details. We have considered
in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the
Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2015).
4
Appeal 2017-001327
Application 13/743,483
Second, Appellants argue that cited combination of references does
not teach or suggest “displaying a second screen on the display according to
the gesture type determined by the controller,” as recited in the claim. App.
Br. 9-10. According to Appellants, Hallford merely teaches the first screen.
Id. (citing Hallford, Figs. 4, 5).
This argument is not persuasive because it is not responsive to the
specific findings made by the Examiner on this point. Furthermore, we note
that Appellants’ arguments are tantamount to an individual attack against the
references. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In particular, the Examiner relies
upon Anderson to teach the second display. Final Act. 6 (citing Anderson
^ 25, Figs. 4A, 4B). The Examiner further relies upon Hallford’s teaching of
determining an input gesture from a plurality of gestures to complement
Anderson. Id. Consequently, Appellants’attack of Hallford alone is
misplaced because the Examiner relies upon the combined disclosures of
Anderson and Hallford to teach the disputed limitation.
Third, Appellants argue that the cited combination of references does
not teach or suggest “determining whether at least one treatment parameter
has been programmed to the controller,” as recited in independent claim 1.
App. Br. 10-12. In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner
incorrectly relied upon Anderson’s “programming sequence” to teach the
disputed limitation. Id. at 11 (citing Anderson 25). According to
Appellants, because the disclosed “programming sequence” begins when the
oven is not in use, it is already known that no treatment parameters have
5
Appeal 2017-001327
Application 13/743,483
been programmed. Therefore, Appellants submit there would be no need to
determine whether the treatment parameter has been programmed. Id.
Further, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance upon Satanek’s
disclosure of a user sliding a virtual bar to adjust the temperature so as to
start cooking or to delay the start thereof does not cure the noted deficiencies
of Anderson. Id. at 12 (citing Satanek ^ 19, 20).
These arguments are not persuasive. As correctly noted by the
Examiner, Anderson discloses numerous treatment options (e.g., Bake,
Broil, etc.) from which a user can select a desired treatment. Ans. 21 (citing
Anderson ^ 25, Fig. 4B). As further correctly noted by the Examiner,
Satanek discloses a stove having a temperature virtual bar, which a user can
adjust (left to right, vice versa) to thereby start a selected treatment or delay
the start of the selected treatment. Id. (citing Satanek 19, 20, Fig. 3). We
agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination would predictably
result in a domestic appliance having a plurality of treatments, wherein a
selected treatment option can be programmed for immediate or delayed
operation upon detecting that the selected treatment has not yet been
programmed. Id. at 21-22.
Fourth, Appellants argue that the proposed combination of references
does not teach or suggest “displaying a second screen on the display
according to . . . whether the controller determined that the at least one
treatment parameter has been programmed,” as recited in independent
claim 1. App. Br. 12-13. In particular, Appellants reiterate the same
argument regarding that no programming detection is taught by the
combination of references. Id. Further, Appellants argue “there is simply no
6
Appeal 2017-001327
Application 13/743,483
disclosure that the action purportedly taught by Satanek results in
‘displaying a second screen.’” Id.
These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above,
and in light of the rebuttal provided by the Examiner. Ans. 22-23. We find
the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited teachings of Anderson,
Hallford, and Satanek is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements
with each performing the same function it had been known to perform,
yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The ordinarily-skilled
artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would be
able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces of a
puzzle to predictably result in a domestic appliance that matches a user’s
input on a first display screen to one of a plurality of predetermined gestures
to thereby produce a second display screen with a treatment corresponding
to the user’s input according to the matching gesture. Id. at 420-21.
Because Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered
combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the proposed
modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled
artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-37, to the extent Appellants have
either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
7
Appeal 2017-001327
Application 13/743,483
patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Further, to the extent Appellants have raised additional
arguments for patentability of these claims, we find that the Examiner has
rebutted in the Answer each and every one of those arguments by a
preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 23-35. We adopt the Examiner’s
findings and underlying reasoning, which we incorporate herein by
reference. Because Appellants have failed to persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s findings regarding the rejections of claims 2-35, Appellants
have failed to show error in the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1-37.
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
8