Ex Parte Hatambeiki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 13, 2017

13673271 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 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. 13/673,271 11/09/2012 Arsham Hatambeiki 81230.135US3 5300 34018 7590 03/15/2017 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 WEST WACKER DRIVE SUITE 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732 EXAMINER FORTINO, ASHLEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2143 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2017 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): j arosikg @ gtlaw .com chiipmail @ gtlaw .com escobedot@gtlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ARSHAM HATAMBEIKI, CHRISTOPHER A. CHAMBERS, HAN-SHENG YUH, and STEVEN CLEGG Appeal 2016-005306 Application 13/673,271 Technology Center 2100 Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-005306 Application 13/673,271 EXEMPLARY CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for configuring a controlling device to command functional operations of an intended target appliance, comprising: receiving at the controlling device a non-appliance specific graphical user interface comprised of user interface elements that are associated with functional operations of a virtual equivalent of an appliance; and in response to the controlling device being introduced into a network ecosystem which includes the intended target appliance, causing the controlling device to use data obtained from the network ecosystem to automatically establish within the controlling device a link between the received, non-appliance specific graphical user interface and the intended target appliance whereupon activation of those user interface elements of the received, non-appliance specific graphical user interface that were associated with functional operations of the virtual equivalent of an appliance will cause the controlling device to transmit commands to control corresponding functional operations of the intended target appliance. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gunter Leeb et al., A Configuration Tool for HomeNet, 42 IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics (1996) (“Leeb”). Claims 3, 5, 6, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Leeb and Dresti (US 2003/0164787 Al; Sept. 4, 2003). 2 Appeal 2016-005306 Application 13/673,271 Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Leeb and Bays (US 2002/0141343 Al; Oct. 3, 2002). ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ contentions in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ contentions, and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants argument that the Examiner errs in finding Leeb discloses in response to the controlling device being introduced into a network ecosystem which includes the intended target appliance, causing the controlling device to . . . automatically establish within the controlling device a link between the received, non appliance specific graphical user interface and the intended target appliance (“automatically establish a link” limitation), as recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner finds Figure 2 of Leeb discloses the non-appliance specific graphical user interface recited in claim 1. Ans. 20. The Examiner further finds Leeb discloses automatically establishing the recited link in response to the controlling device being introduced into a network ecosystem by its description that the HCT (mapped to the claimed controlling device) is configured to control appliances and that the appliance and the HCT must be on the HomeNet in order for the appliances to be controlled from anywhere in the HomeNet. Ans. 22—23. Appellants contend that Leeb does not teach or suggest that the HCT will respond to being introduced into a network ecosystem by automatically establishing the link between the non-appliance specific graphical user 3 Appeal 2016-005306 Application 13/673,271 interface and the intended target appliance. App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 4—5. Instead, Appellants argue that Leeb describes that all that is required to configure the HCT to transmit commands to a particular appliance is for a software module to be installed on the HCT, irrespective of whether that appliance or the HCT is a part of the HomeNet. Reply Br. 4. Leeb describes the HomeNet as an abstraction of a network capable of transporting any services for appliances in the household that consists of a number of independent appliances which can be controlled electronically from anywhere in the HomeNet. Leeb 390. Leeb further describes that manufacturers provide their appliances with a standardized software interface and supply information about that interface, which when loaded into the HCT allows the tool to represent the functionality of the appliance and allows the user to monitor and control the appliance. Id. at 390-391. The user may specify the behavior of the Home System by connecting functions of different appliances (e.g., when turning off the desk light, the main light will be turned off). Id. at 391, Fig. 2. We agree with Appellants that the cited sections of Leeb do not disclose automatically establishing a link between the user interface disclosed in Figure 2 (“non-appliance specific graphical user interface”) and the intended target appliance in response to the HCT (“controlling device”) being introduced into a network ecosystem (HomeNet) which includes the intended target appliance, as required by the “automatically establish a link” limitation. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4, and 7. 4 Appeal 2016-005306 Application 13/673,271 Independent claim 9 sets forth a similar limitation as the “automatically establish a link” limitation, which requires the controlling device to use data received from another controlling device (indicative of a link established in the other controlling device) to cause the controlling device to automatically establish a link between the non-appliance specific graphical user interface and the intendent target limitation. The Examiner does not establish that Leeb discloses data received from a third-party software module (equated to be “the received data”) is used to automatically establish a link between the interface disclosed in Figure 2 (“non-appliance specific graphical user interface”) and the target appliance. See Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 25. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 9 and its dependent claim 11. The Examiner does not show the additional references of record (Dresti, Bayes) overcome the deficiency in Feeb. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 13. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—13. REVERSED 5