Ex Parte HunterDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201713597937 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation