Ex Parte Inamoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2018

14124955 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/124,955 12/09/2013 Shinji Inamoto
60803 7590 09/13/2018
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1946-0612 5440
EXAMINER
MICHAUD, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINJI INAMOTO, SADAKAZU NAGAO,
and KA TSUTOSHI ISHIW AT A, DAISUKE OGATA
Appeal2018-000494
Application 14/124,955
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--14, and 16-18, which are all the claims
pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 3 and 15 have been cancelled previously.
Appeal2018-000494
Application 14/124,955
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire device
information on a plurality of connected input terminals; and
a selection unit configured to select, from the plurality of
connected input terminals, an input terminal to be used based
on information concerning detection units of the input terminals
that is included in the device information,
wherein the device information includes information
regarding remaining battery level of each one of the plurality of
connected input terminals,
wherein the selection unit selects, from among those of
the connected input terminals having a remaining battery level
that satisfies a predetermined condition, the input terminal with
highest importance degree as the input terminal to be used, and
wherein the acquisition unit and the selection unit are
each implemented via at least one processor.
Claims 1, 2, 7-14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2005/0225530 Al; published Oct. 13,
2005) ("Evans") and Nishibayashi et al. (US 2007/0291661 Al; published
Dec. 20, 2007) ("Nishibayashi"). See Final Act. 5-21.
Claims 4--6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Evans, Nishibayashi, and Yamada et al. (US 2008/01192 73 A 1;
published May 22, 2008) ("Yamada"). See Final Act. 21-25.
2
Appeal2018-000494
Application 14/124,955
ANALYSIS
Claim 1, 2, 7-14, and 16--18
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend "Evans in view of
Nishibayashi does not consider a group of connected input terminals, such a
group being specifically formed of those terminals having a remaining
battery life that satisfies a predetermined condition, and then, selecting
from among such a group, the one input terminal having highest importance
degree as the input terminal to be used." App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4.
Appellants assert the recited "importance degree" and "remaining battery
level" are clear and their "plain language recitations" are missing in the
proposed combination of the references. App. Br. 13-14.
The Examiner finds Evans discloses a mapper as the recited
acquisition unit, input devices 65----67 and 42 connected to the mapper ( or
acquisition unit), and a selection unit for ranking the input devices. Final
Act. 5----6 (citing Evans ,r,r 11, 39, 46, 100, 101), Ans. 8. The Examiner
further finds Nishibayashi discloses a session information management unit
that acquires information regarding the connected devices, including
multicast capabilities and remaining battery power, and determines which
device among those devices that have sufficient battery power should
multicast. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Nishibayashi Fig. 9, ,r 83), Ans. 8-9. The
Examiner specifically explains:
Nishibayashi discloses that the session information
management unit 104 determines that it is difficult for the
display device D 1 to multicast information to the display
devices D2 to D4, ... for example, the number of terminal
devices as information transmission destinations, information
( e.g., remaining battery power) unique to each terminal device
and the session information management unit 104 determines
3
Appeal2018-000494
Application 14/124,955
that it is desirable that a terminal device, such as the display
device D4, which has a sufficient remaining battery power
which demonstrates that Nishibayashi can determine from
among those of the connected input terminals having a
remaining battery level that satisfies a predetermined condition.
Additionally Nishibayashi discloses when performing multicast
transport, the session information management unit 104 also
determines which terminal device should perform multicast
transport, referring to the connection information concerning
the terminal devices, and transmits, to each terminal device via
the communication processing unit 101, selection-designating
information designating whether each terminal device should
perform unicasting or multicasting, which indicates that
Nishibayashi discloses [ wherein the selection unit selects] ... ,
the input terminal with highest importance degree as the input
terminal to be used. Nishibayashi does in fact choose a
terminal to be used with information in addition to the
remaining battery life using the connection information.
Ans. 8-9 ( emphases added).
In other words, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Nishibayashi
teaches selecting input devices that have a remaining battery level above a
threshold and determining which one of those devices should multicast. See
Nishibayashi ,r 83 ("For instance, the session information management unit
104 determines that it is desirable that a terminal device, such as the display
device D4, which has a sufficient remaining battery power, should multicast
the screen information of the communication apparatus to the other display
devices."). In this case, the device with the highest remaining battery level,
which is tasked with the multicasting, is determined to have the "highest
importance degree."
Appellants further contend that "Nishibayashi does not consider to
select a sin2Ie input terminal from a group that is formed o(only those
connected input terminals that have a remaining battery level satisfying a
4
Appeal2018-000494
Application 14/124,955
predetermined condition." App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 5-6.
Additionally, Appellants argue "Nishibayashi does not consider a sub-group
consisting of only those input terminals ( selected from all connected input
terminals) that satisfy the predetermined condition, and then selecting one
input terminal (i.e., the one with highest importance degree) from such a
sub-group." App. Br. 15.
In response, the Examiner restates the findings regarding
Nishibayashi' s session information management unit that determines the
input terminal devices that have remaining battery power levels higher than
a threshold and selects one of this "sub-group" of input terminals to
multicast. Ans. 10-11. In other words, selecting the terminal device having
the highest remaining battery power among the devices that have remaining
battery power levels higher than a threshold value meets the recited step of
selecting "from among those of the connected input terminals having a
remaining battery level that satisfies a predetermined condition, the input
terminal with highest importance degree as the input terminal to be used."
App. Br. 19.
We also observe that Appellants' arguments amount to no more than
repeating the disputed limitations and generally alleging that the cited prior
art references are deficient. Merely pointing out certain claim features
recited in independent claim 1 and nakedly asserting that none of the cited
prior art references teach or suggest such features do not amount to a
separate patentability argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."); see also In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board
5
Appeal2018-000494
Application 14/124,955
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.");
cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is
not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than
argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior
art.").
Also, our reviewing Court has reaffirmed that the procedural burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness is met, in accordance with
35 U.S.C. § 132, by stating reasons for a rejection together with information
and references as may be useful to applicant in judging the propriety of
continuing prosecution. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2011 ). This the Examiner has done in the Examiner's Answer.
The Court in Jung also spoke approvingly of the Board's longstanding
practice of requiring an Appellant to identify the alleged error in an
Examiner's rejection, with the panel then reviewing the rejection for error
based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments
and evidence produced thereon. Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365---66 (citing Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)).
On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive
arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error regarding
the aforementioned disputed limitations. We have considered Appellants'
Reply Brief but find it unpersuasive in rebutting the Examiner's responses.
It follows that because Appellants have failed to rebut the Examiner's
specific factual findings, Appellants have not established the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of Evans and Nishibayashi renders
6
Appeal2018-000494
Application 14/124,955
independent claim 1, as well as claims 2, 7-14, and 16-18 not argued
separately, unpatentable.
Claims 4-6
Appellants challenge the rejection of claims 4---6 over the combination
of Evans, Nishibayashi, and Yamada by presenting arguments that are
similar to those raised for claim 1. App. Br. 16-17. For the reasons outlined
above, we are unpersuaded of Examiner's error in rejecting claims 4---6.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--14, 16-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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