Ex Parte Inamoto et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 13, 201814124955 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation