Ex Parte Knodt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2018

13781447 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/781,447 02/28/2013 29989 7590 09/27/2018 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP 1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD FLOOR 12 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 KurtKnodt 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. 49986-0769 7732 EXAMINER BASOM, BLAINE T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2018 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): usdocket@h35g.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KURT KNODT, JAYASIMHA NUGGEHALLI, JAMES WOO, GUILUAN LUO, and SRIKRISHNA NARASIMHAN Appeal2018-000320 Application 13/781,447 1 Technology Center 2100 Before LARRY J. HUME, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-22, which constitute all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Ricoh Company, Ltd. as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal2018-000320 Application 13/781,447 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention The claimed invention relates to a "collaboration manager," or "virtual projector," which allows a mobile device to display electronic information on one or more projector display devices. Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 1-3. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A method for displaying information on a display device, the method comprising: a collaboration manager executing on a collaboration server receiving, from a collaboration client on a mobile device, a first request to display electronic information on a display device, wherein the first request to display electronic information on the display device specifies electronic information to be displayed on the display device and includes position information that specifies a display position on the display device at which the electronic information is to be displayed; and in response to the request to display the electronic information on the display device, the collaboration manager generating and transmitting to a collaboration client executing on the display device, a second request to display the electronic information on the display device, wherein the second request to display the electronic information on the display device specifies the electronic information to be displayed on the display device and includes the position information that specifies a display position on the display device at which the electronic information is to be displayed, wherein processing, by the display device, of the second request, causes the electronic information specified by the second request to be displayed on the display device. Br. 13 (Claims App'x) (emphases and formatting added). 2 Appeal2018-000320 Application 13/781,447 The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Strober (US 8,356,251 B2; issued Jan. 15, 2013) and Ichieda (US 2009/0015515 Al; published Jan. 15, 2009). Final Act. 3---6. Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Strober, Ichieda, and Nagano et al. (US 2004/0130568 Al; published July 8, 2004) ("Nagano"). Final Act. 6-8. Claims 4, 7, 14, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Strober, Ichieda, Nagano, and Robinson et al. (US 2012/0221960 Al; published Aug. 30, 2012) ("Robinson"). Final Act. 8-11. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Strober, Ichieda, and Lee et al. (US 2010/0050081 Al; Feb. 25, 2010) ("Lee"). Final Act. 11-12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Brief2 are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, and provide the following discussion for highlighting and emphasis. 2 No reply brief was filed. 3 Appeal2018-000320 Application 13/781,447 Rejection of Claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 Under 35 USCÂ§ 103 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or suggests sending, to a display device, a request to display information that specifies both the "electronic information" to be displayed and the "position on the display device" where the information is to be displayed, as recited in claim 1. Br. 6-9 ( emphasis added). Appellants contend Strober lacks any teaching of position information, and that any teaching of position information in Ichieda is "unnecessary" (i.e., inapposite to the claims) because Ichieda discloses that the relevant display areas "have already been reserved" at the time a mobile device sends any position information. Id. at 8-9. Appellants' arguments, however, do not persuade us of error. As the Examiner finds, Strober teaches a "server system" that permits a "personal computing device" to display content on a separate "display device." Ans. 13; Strober col 1, 1. 44---col. 2, 1. 15. Strober further teaches that the personal computing device may be a "mobile phone." Strober col. 2, 1. 13. Moreover, as the Examiner finds, Strober teaches a single request that specifies the "electronic information to be displayed" and the particular device on which the information is to be displayed. Ans. 13; Strober col. 3, 11. 12--41. The Examiner does not expressly find that Strober teaches the position within a particular display on which content is displayed. As the Examiner, finds, however, Ichieda provides this teaching. Ans. 13. Ichieda describes a remote display system in which an image may be "segmented into [multiple] areas" on a display screen. Ichieda ,r 46. The image is generated "based on the display instruction of the user ... and [a] projection unit[] projects the segmented image" upon the corresponding area in the display. Id.; see also 4 Appeal2018-000320 Application 13/781,447 id. at Fig. 3 (flowchart including the steps of "generate a segmented image based on image data and area management data," and "project segmented image"), Fig. 4. As the Examiner finds, Ichieda teaches "position information that specifies a display position on the display device," because the display screen in Ichieda is divided into multiple display areas - each having a position on the screen. Id. at ,I46. Ichieda's teaching of "position information" is further illustrated in Figure 11, reproduced below. 31H /311 311-2 /303 ,-------+' --"---~~~~~~u} ~~~~~~ Do ( \ 311-3 ( 3114 \ \ b 321Â·2 321-1 i / . \ \ ~31) ' ' ( I . \ ,.321 ,,,,. 321-3 321-4 Figure 11 depicts a segmented image 303, including "individual areas" 311- 1 to 311-4, and "individual connection images" 321-1 to 321- 4. Id. at ,r 73. Each of 321-1 to 321-4 includes "area information [ corresponding to] the individual areas 311-1 to 311- 4, respectively." Id. ( emphasis added). Appellants argue that modifying Strober in view of Ichieda merely adds a "connection request" to "reserve a portion of the [already divided] display device" for the signal of a particular cell phone - for example, to permit multiple cell phones to display information concurrently in their reserved portions of a display device. Br. 9 ( emphasis added). Displaying information on a particular "portion" of a display device, however, is 5 Appeal2018-000320 Application 13/781,447 precisely what claim 1 recites. Br. 13 ("request ... includes the position information that specifies a display position"). It is irrelevant whether Ichieda also teaches a "connection request" corresponding to one of multiple mobile devices. The Examiner relies on Ichieda for its teaching of specifying "position information" related to a display, and Appellants' arguments do not demonstrate error in the Examiner's findings. To the extent Appellants' argument is intended to mean that neither reference alone teaches a "request to display" which includes both the information to be displayed and position information, this argument also does not demonstrate error because the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Strober and Ichieda. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references."). Appellants further do not contest the Examiner's finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references, and accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining the references. Final Act. 5 ( one of ordinary skill would recognize that Ichieda's teaching of position information would enable multiple devices in Strober to display information on a single display); see also Ans. 12-13. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 8-11 and 18-20, argued therewith. Remaining Rejections Under 35 US.C. Â§ 103 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting the remaining claims, all of which are dependent, for the same reasons as independent 6 Appeal2018-000320 Application 13/781,447 claims 1 and 11. Br. 10-11. Appellants assert the additional references cited in these remaining rejections fail to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of the independent claims. Id. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiners obviousness rejections of claims 2-7, 12-17, 21, and 22. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22. 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). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 7