Ex Parte Hunter

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

13597937 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
13/597,937 08/29/2012 Jim Hunter 4HM00011-DIV1 7491
43471 7590 03/30/2017
ARRTS2 F.ntp.mrisp.s T ! C
EXAMINER
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
TIV, BACKHEAN
HORSHAM, PA 19044 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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):
arris. docketing @ arris .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIM HUNTER
Appeal 2016-0084841
Application 13/597,937
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 8—13, 19, and 20, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest ARRIS Technology, Inc.
(App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2016-008484
Application 13/597,937
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention “generally relate to interactive control of
devices over networks.” (Specification (filed Aug. 29, 2012) (“Spec.”) 11.)
Specifically, “[a] messaging infrastructure is used to allow . . . items to
communicate [a] list of content between each other.” (Spec. 12.) Claim 8 is
illustrative, and is reproduced (with minor formatting changes) below:
8. A method of interacting with an interface of another
item, the method comprising:
providing control of a display item on a user interface on
a first item to a second item;
receiving information for input to the display item from
the second item in a message, the message being part of a
messaging infrastructure allowing the first item and the second
item to communicate without the second item being configured
to communicate peer to peer with the first item, wherein an
input device for the second item is used to provide the input, the
input device providing an input function not associated with the
first item;
determining an output method for outputting on a user
interface; and
outputting the information on the display item in the user
interface using the output method.
(App. Br. 7 (Claims App’x).)
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Lee et al.
(“Lee”) US 2006/0095402 Al May 4, 2006
2
Appeal 2016-008484
Application 13/597,937
Bowen et al.
(“Bowen”) US 2007/0093199 Al Apr. 26, 2007
Walker US 2007/0157234 Al July 5, 2007
Mar. 18, 2008DaCosta US 7,344,084 B2
Claims 8—12, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over DaCosta, in view of Walker, and further in view of
Bowen. (See Final Office Action (mailed July 17, 2015) (“Final Act.”) 2—5.)
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DaCosta, in view of Walker, and further in view of Lee.
(See Final Act. 6.)
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8—13, 19, and 20. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2—6.)
However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
The Examiner finds that “DaCosta in view of Walker . . . does not
teach the second item to communicate without the second item configured to
communicate peer to peer with the first item [but] Bowen explicitly teaches
[a] communication other than peer to peer . . . .” (Final Act. 4.) Appellant
contends that none of the devices in Bowen are “shown to communicate
with each other peer to peer or otherwise” and that there “is no display
ANALYSIS
3
Appeal 2016-008484
Application 13/597,937
device that are communicating with each other without peer to peer
connections.” (Br. 5—6.)
Appellant, however, has not persuaded us of Examiner error. “[0]ne
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as
here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). We agree with the Examiner’s
findings that the combination of DaCosta and Walker teaches or suggests
“receiving information for input to the display item from the second item in
a message, the message being part of a messaging infrastructure, allowing
the first item and the second item [to communicate].” (Final Act. 3^4; Ans.
3.), and Appellant does not disputed this finding. We further agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Bowen teaches or suggests “communication other
than peer to peer.” (Final Act. 4; Ans. 3—5.) Appellant, however, does not
respond to the Examiner’s specific findings regarding Bowen (Ans. 3—5)
and, therefore, have not persuaded us of Examiner error.
With regard to Appellant’s contention that, in Bowen, there “is no
display devices that are communicating with each other,” Appellant has not
persuaded us of Examiner error. (Br. 5—6.) Specifically, the Examiner relies
on Walker, not Bowen, for teaching or suggesting a display (Final Act. 3).
Moreover, as the Examiner further explains, Bowen also teaches or suggest
“a mobile device 110 with a display . . . .” (Ans. 4—5; see Bowen, Fig. 1.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 8. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 8, as well as claims 9-13, 19, and 20, which are not argued separately.
(App. Br. 6.)
4
Appeal 2016-008484
Application 13/597,937
DECISION
We sustain the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8—13, 19, and
20.
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
5