Ex Parte Kempe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2016

12789312 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121789,312 05/27/2010 David D. Kempe
12811 7590 05/23/2016
Paradice and Li LLP (QCOM)
1999 S. Bascom Ave.
Suite 300
Campbell, CA 95008
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.
QCP142111 8387
EXAMINER
DISTEFANO, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2016 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
uspto@paradiceli.com
william@paradiceli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte DAVID D. KEMPE
Appeal2014-001951
Application 12/789,312
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-001951
Application 12/789,312
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosure relates to "determining and presenting a
gesture tutorial comprising audio and/ or video presentation on a gesture that
is not frequently used by the user." Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis
added):
1. A computer-implemented method for determining a
tutorial presentation for users of computing devices, the method
compnsmg:
determining a gesture repertoire of a user associated with
a computing device, the gesture repertoire representing gesture
information associated with gestures detected a pre-determined
number of times on another computing device associated with
the user;
determining a gesture associated with the computing
device, wherein the determined gesture is not represented in the
gesture repertoire of the user;
determining a tutorial presentation corresponding to the
determined gesture; and
transmitting the determined tutorial presentation to the
computing device for presentation to the user.
The Examiner's Rejection
RI: Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2011/0200980 Al; Aug.
18, 2011), Beeck (US 2008/0178126 Al; July 24, 2008), and Maruyama
(US 2003/0046351 Al; Mar. 6, 2003). Final Act 2.
2
Appeal2014-001951
Application 12/789,312
R2: Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi, Beeck, and Skeans (US 2002/0081561 Al;
June 27, 2002). Final Act 5.
R3: Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Takahashi, Beeck, and Fink (US 5,953,533; Sept.
14, 1999). Final Act 6.
R4: Claims 15 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Takahashi, Beeck, Fink, and Maruyama. Final Act
8.
R5: Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi, Beeck, Fink, and Skeans. Final Act 12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings
and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-16; Ans. 2-18) as our own, and we add
the following primarily for emphasis.
A. Rejections RI and R2
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because Maruyama fails "to disclose 'detecting user information on another
computing device,' as alleged by the Examiner" and Maruyama' s disclosure
is "insufficient to support" the rejection. Reply Br. 4. Particularly,
Appellant contends Maruyama does not disclose information that "pertains
to multiple devices associated with a user." Reply Br. 5.
3
Appeal2014-001951
Application 12/789,312
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive of error. The Examiner finds
Maruyama teaches "detecting user information on another computing
device" (emphasis removed). Ans. 13, citing Maruyama i-f 11, Figs. 1 and
11. We agree, because a user signing on to Maruyama' s document
management system from an identified terminal would supply a user e-mail
address (Maruyama i-f 11 ), and the document management system would
detect user information (the e-mail address) from the identified computing
device of a plurality of identified computing devices. See Maruyama Fig. 1.
Appellant further argues the cited references "when taken in
combination, still fail to disclose 'determining a gesture repertoire of a user
associated with a computing device, the gesture repertoire representing
gesture information associated with gestures detected ... on another
computing device associated with the user."' Reply Br. 6. Particularly,
Appellant contends "At best, Maruyama discloses that a user uses a terminal
to 'connect with the document management system [] via a network' (para.
[0064], Maruyama)." App. Br. 7.
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of error because Appellant
attacks the references individually, and thus fails to address the Examiner's
findings with respect to what the combined teachings of the references
would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner finds, and we agree,
"Maruyama is cited as detecting user information on another computing
device," and "upon the modification of Takahashi in view of Beeck in view
of Maruyama, one would arrive at a 'gesture repertoire representing a
gesture information' (Beeck) 'associated with gestures detected a pre-
determined number of times' (Takahashi) 'on another computing device
4
Appeal2014-001951
Application 12/789,312
associated with the user' (Maruyama)." Ans. 13-14 (citing Takahashi if 76;
Beek Abstract; Maruyama Figs. 1, 11 ). The Examiner's findings are
reasonable because the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton," and this is a case in which the skilled artisan would "be able
to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." See
KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 421 (2007).
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1, because "Takahashi does not disclose 'transmitting the determined
tutorial presentation to the computing device for presentation to the user."'
App. Br. 7 (emphasis removed). Appellant contends "Takahashi discloses
that the PDA includes a tutorial ... unit" and that Figure 4 of Takahashi
"establishes that the tutorial information is already stored in the memory of
the PDA." App. Br. 7-8. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, Takahashi teaches "a content server 3 may be
utilized for transmitting tutorial information to the PDA of the user." Ans.
14, citing if 45 ("contents server 3 is a server which distributes additional
contents and tutorial information.").
Claims 2 and 9 similarly recite limitations relating to a "tutorial
presentation" as discussed above. Appellant's arguments regarding the
teachings of Skeans (see App. Br. 10-11) are not persuasive of error, as the
Examiner relies on Takahashi for such tutorial presentation limitations (see
Ans. 16). Therefore we do not find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2
and 9.
Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1, dependent claims 2 and 9, and claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11,
and 14 which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 8.
5
Appeal2014-001951
Application 12/789,312
B. Rejections R3, R4, and R5
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15, because
the claim "comprises 'receiving' the tutorial presentation comprising
instructions for using a gesture that is not included in said gesture repertoire
of the user." App. Br. 9. Particularly, Appellant contends "in each of
Takahashi and Beeck, the PDA or computing device, respectively, stores
tutorials and then selects which ones to display to the user at a later time"
and thus "[t ]here is no receipt of a 'tutorial presentation'" as claimed. Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds
Takahashi discloses a PDA which receives a tutorial. See Ans. 9 (citing
Takahashi Abstract ("an information processing device ... acquires a
tutorial")). The Examiner further finds Takahashi teaches "a content server
3 may be utilized for transmitting tutorial information to the PDA of the
user." Ans. 14 (citing Takahashi i-fi-145--46 and 68); see also Ans. 15. Thus
the claimed "receiving the tutorial presentation" encompasses Takahashi's
PDA that receives a tutorial.
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15,
because the combination of references fails to disclose "presenting the
received tutorial presentation in response to (i) registration of the computing
device, or (ii) an installation of or an update of an application or an operating
system on the computing device." App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 8-10.
Particularly, Appellant contends "Fink does not disclose that 'a tutorial on
use of the product may be displayed while software is updated or installed.'"
App. Br. 9.
6
Appeal2014-001951
Application 12/789,312
We are not persuaded of Examiner error, because Appellant's
arguments are not responsive to the Examiner's findings. The Examiner
finds:
Fink teaches in column 4, lines 35-50, "additional features 226
include those features useful or desirable for end user
installation, i.e. selection of product(s) to manufacture;
marketing product(s) by displaying on-screen advertisements
during manufacture/installation or operation; testing and/or
demonstrating the products; tutorial on use of the product(s)."
Ans. 15 (emphasis added). This portion of Fink describes features desirable
for "end user installation" such as displaying on-screen advertisements
during installation. See Fink 4:35-50. The Examiner finds, and we agree, it
would have been obvious to modify the tutorials of Takahashi with Fink's
teaching of timing during installation, because "such practices provide a
clear benefit to the user in introducing new features of software which the
user is unfamiliar with." Ans. 10. 1 Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of
error because Appellant attacks Fink individually, and thus fails to address
the Examiner's findings. "The test for obviousness is not ... that the
claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references." Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Rather, "if a technique has been used
to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
1 We also note that Fink explicitly teaches "the software factory 222 may
advantageously test and/or demonstrate the manufactured software products
after installation." Fink 5:47--49.
7
Appeal2014-001951
Application 12/789,312
Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 15 or dependent claims 16-20 which are not separately
argued. See App. Br. 10.
Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 similarly recite limitations relating to
presenting the "tutorial presentation" in response to an installation or an
update of: (1) an operating system (see Claims 5 and 12), or (2) an
application (see Claims 6 and 13). Appellant's arguments regarding the
teachings of Fink (see App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 10) are not persuasive of
error, at least for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 15. See
Ans. 16-18. Thus we do not find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5,
6, 12, and 13.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
AFFIRMED
8