Ex Parte Jopling

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 2018

14696782 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/696,782 04/27/2015 27530 7590 12/25/2018 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP IP Department One Wells Fargo Center 301 South College Street, 23rd Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kenton Sterling Jopling 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. 48379/09068 4674 EXAMINER WENG, PEI YONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/25/2018 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): ip@nelsonmullins.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENTON STERLING JOPLING Appeal2018-005653 Application 14/696,782 Technology Center 2100 Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-17 and 21-23, constituting all claims currently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal2018-005653 Application 14/696,782 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is directed to a marine electronics device with smart device mirroring. See Spec. ,r 14. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a plurality of computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to: establish a connection between a marine electronics device connected to a vessel and a remotely-located smart device, wherein the marine electronics device is configured to monitor and control marine features corresponding to the vessel, wherein the marine electronics device is configured to display marine data including at least one of chart data, radar data, sonar data, steering data, dashboard data, navigation data, or fishing data; initialize a graphical user interface (GUI) mirroring application on the smart device; receive a GUI from the smart device; display the GUI on a screen of the marine electronics device; and transmit one or more commands or selections received on the marine electronics device to the smart device. (App. Br., Claims Appendix, 9.) REJECTION Claims 1-17 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (US 2010/0262673 Al; published Oct. 14, 2010) ("Chang") and Butterworth (US 2014/0013276 Al; published Jan. 9, 2014). Final Act. 2; Ans. 3. 2 Appeal2018-005653 Application 14/696,782 ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chang and Butterworth teaches or suggests "a marine electronics device connected to a vessel ... wherein the marine electronics device is configured to monitor and control marine features corresponding to the vessel, wherein the marine electronics device is configured to display marine data" and "display the GUI [ from a smart device] on a screen of the marine electronics device[s]," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 9 and 16? The Examiner finds Chang teaches displaying a GUI from a smart device on the screen of an electronics device. Ans. 4 ( citing Chang Figs. 1- 3, ,r 150). The Examiner further finds Butterworth teaches a marine electronics device that monitors and controls marine features, including displaying marine data. Ans. 5 (citing Butterworth Figs. 7, 8, ,r,r 5, 38). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to combine Chang and Butterworth because they are both directed to computer GUI display methods and it would have been obvious to modify Chang's computer GUI display with Butterworth's computer display of marine information. Ans. 5; see Ans. 14. Specifically, the Examiner finds Butterworth teaches "that a marine electric device can be a computer that displays marine electronics." Ans. 14. Appellant contends there is "no articulated reasoning for a motivation to adapt [Butterworth's] marine related display installed on a marine vessel with the GUI display function on the generic computer of Chang." App. Br. 5---6 (underlining omitted; emphasis added.) Specifically, Appellant argues there is "no indication or other motivation to extend the functionality of 3 Appeal2018-005653 Application 14/696,782 Butterworth' s marine electronic device to include a smart device mirroring application that is remotely connected to the marine electronic device." App. Br. 6. According to Appellant, "just because two references can be combined, that is not a motivation to combine the references." Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues one would not be motivated "to modify the system of Chang to be connected to a vessel and configured to monitor and control marine functions corresponding to the vessel" because the "marine environment is problematic for the generic desktop of Chang ... due to the extreme weather conditions that the marine electronic device endures (being outside in the constant sun all day - something that generic desktops ( such as in Chang) are not configured to handle)." App. Br. 7. We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's arguments. As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Chang describes "the first terminal 100 transmits screen information displayed on the display unit 151 to the second terminal 200 so that the screen information of the first terminal 100 is reproduced on at least a portion of a screen of the second terminal 200" (Chang ,r 146) and "the second terminal 200 displays a manipulation unit for enabling a user to manipulate all functions of the first terminal 100 together with the screen information" (Chang ,r 150). In other words, Chang teaches connecting a first device and a second device (i.e., the claimed smart device and electronics device, respectively), mirroring the display from the first device to the second device and reproducing the display on the second device (i.e., the claimed initializing GUI mirror application on the smart device and then the electronics device receiving and displaying the mirrored GUI from the smart device), and manipulating functions of the first device using the second device (i.e., the claimed electronics device receiving 4 Appeal2018-005653 Application 14/696,782 commands or selections on the electronics device and transmitting to the smart device). As further cited by the Examiner (Ans. 13), Chang describes "a mobile terminal described in this disclosure can include such a video and audio outputtable terminal[] as ... a navigation system." Chang ,r 69. Butterworth shows a marine electronics data menu including chart, sonar, radar, and steer information. See Ans. 5 ( citing Butterworth Figs. 7, 8). Butterworth also describes the "computing system 100 may be ... part of a navigation system." Butterworth ,r 41; see Ans. 13. In other words, in addition to teaching the claimed steps for mirroring a smart device GUI on an electronics device, Chang teaches providing this GUI mirroring in a navigation system, such as Butterworth's navigation system in a marine environment (i.e., including chart, sonar, radar, and steer information). We agree with the Examiner's findings that "even without Butterworth, it would have been obvious to implement [Chang's] system on any type of computers including computers that are installed on boats," and that Butterworth makes it "even clearer that the features disclosed in Chang can be implemented on a marine computer" Ans. 14 (bolding omitted.) Contrary to Appellant's argument, the Examiner's finding is not limited to merely combining computers with additional functions. Specifically, Appellant has not addressed the Examiner's finding that Chang teaches the claimed GUI mirroring in a computer system, in a navigation system, such as the navigation system specifically used in a marine environment of Butterworth. For at least the above reasons we sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 16. For the same reasons, we 5 Appeal2018-005653 Application 14/696,782 sustain the Examiner's Â§ 103 rejection of dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17, not argued separately. See App. Br. 8. Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chang and Butterworth teaches or suggests "display the GUI on a first portion of the screen of the marine electronics device; and simultaneously display the marine data on a second portion of the screen of the marine electronics device," as recited in dependent claim 21 and commensurately recited in dependent claims 22 and 23? The Examiner relies on Butterworth to teach portions displaying GUI and portions displaying marine data together. Ans. 15 ( citing Butterworth Figs. 7, 8, ,r 67); see Ans. 12. Appellant contends Butterworth discloses a "generic system menu" and fails "to teach or suggest displaying both a GUI mirroring application and marine data in two different sections of the screen at the same time." App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant argues Butterworth teaches side menu screens displayed with example data types, but the "side menu screens are not the equivalent of a GUI mirroring application," and instead there is "no simultaneous display of both a GUI mirroring application and marine data in Butterworth." Reply Br. 3. We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. As Appellant points out, Butterworth does not teach a GUI mirroring application or simultaneous display of a GUI mirroring application and marine data. See Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 7. Paragraph 67 of Butterworth describes "one or more displayed tray options which may be used to display, enhance, alter, and/or edit marine electronics data, such as the one or more displayed tray options 712 of tray 6 Appeal2018-005653 Application 14/696,782 menu 704 and the one or more displayed tray options 713 of tray menu 706" and "[t]he displayed tray options may include options to display different types of marine electronics data simultaneously, options to alter settings of the touch screen 105, or any other option to display, enhance, alter, and/or edit marine electronics data." In other words, Butterworth teaches menu screens with tray options that are displayed simultaneously, but the tray options are not mirrored from another device. We find the Examiner has not provided sufficient findings that Butterworth's simultaneously displaying tray options, that are not mirrored from another device, teaches the claimed simultaneously displaying marine data and the GUI that is mirrored from the smart device using a GUI mirroring application. Accordingly, we are constrained, based on the record, to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 21 and commensurate claims 22 and 23. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-17 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 21-23 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7