Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2016

12873638 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/873,638 09/01/2010 66547 7590 08/31/2016 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ho-Yeon PARK 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. 678-4041 (Pl7678) 5707 EXAMINER DORSEY, RENEE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2682 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2016 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 HO-YEON PARK, SUNG-OH HWANG, BO-SUN JUNG, JUN-HYUNG KIM, and JI-EUN KEUM Appeal2015-004002 Application 12/873,638 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-21. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal2015-004002 Application 12/873,638 THE INVENTION Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a remote control device in a short-range network system. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A remote control method of an application execution device in a short range network system, comprising: collecting, from a remote device that remotely controls the application execution device using a predetermined Control User Interface (CUI), information about capability of the remote device; sending a CUI request requesting a CUI to be used for remotely controlling a currently executed application and the information about the capability of the remote device to an application server; receiving a CUI matching the capability of the remote device from the application server in response to the CUI request; and sending the received CUI to the remote device. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Maymudes (US 2004/0236442 Al, pub. Nov. 25, 2004). (Final Act. 2-18.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issue: 2 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jun. 30, 2014); the Reply Brief 2 Appeal2015-004002 Application 12/873,638 Whether, under Â§ 102, the Examiner erred in finding Maymudes discloses the limitations of independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. (App. Br. 4--9.) ANALYSIS In finding Maymudes anticipates the claims, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of a remote controlled system which employs a computer- based "remote control facilitator," also referred to as a "computer facilitator," to facilitate remote control of a "controlled device" from a non- dedicated remote controller, where the remote controller and the controlled device communicate through a network with the computer facilitator. (Final Act. 2--4; Maymudes Abstract, Fig. 2, i-fi-121-25.) The remote controller provides a description of its capabilities to the computer facilitator, and in tum the computer facilitator provides a user interface back to the remote controller. (Maymudes i-fi-139, 40.) As explained in Maymudes, the computer facilitator then acts as an intermediary between the remote controller and the controlled device: The remote control facilitator 202 essentially controls both the remote controller 204 and the controlled device 206. The facilitator 202 provides information to the remote controller 204 that is presented to a user to enable the user to enter control data for controlling the controlled device 206. The facilitator 202 receives the control data from the remote controller 204 and translates that data into commands that are (filed Feb. 11, 2015); the Final Office Action (mailed Oct. 9, 2013); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Dec. 16, 2014) for the respective details. 3 Appeal2015-004002 Application 12/873,638 sent to the controlled device 206 to effectuate the action intended by the user. (Maymudes i-f 25.) Appellants argue this disclosure does not satisfy any of the limitations of claim 1, which requires an "application execution device" to collect, from a "remote device," information about the capability of the remote device, to send that collected information to an "application server," to receive a "Control User Interface" from the application server, and then to send that interface to the remote device. (App. Br. 4--8.)3 Appellants argue the only appropriate comparison of the disclosure of Maymudes to the subject matter of the claims is to associate the remote controller of Maymudes with the remote device of the claims, the controlled device of Maymudes with the application execution device of the claims, and the computer facilitator of Maymudes with the application server of the claims. (App. Br. 5, 8.) Given that correspondence, Appellants argue, Maymudes differs from the claims in that: (i) the component corresponding to the application server, rather than the component corresponding to the application execution device, collects information from the component corresponding to the remote device; (ii) thus, the component corresponding to the application execution device does not send information about the capability of the remote device to an 3 Appellants argue the limitations of independent claims 6, 11, and 16 are similar to those of claim 1 and the arguments made with respect to claim 1 also apply to the remaining independent claims. (App. Br. 4.) We agree as to claims 6 and 16. The limitations of claim 11 do not specify an application server, but that distinction is not significant insofar as the dispositive issue on Appeal is concerned. 4 Appeal2015-004002 Application 12/873,638 "application server," or receive a "Control User Interface" from the application server; and (iii) the component corresponding to the application server, rather than the component corresponding to the application execution device, sends the Control User Interface to the component corresponding to the remote device. (App. Br. 4--8.) We agree with Appellants' arguments. The Examiner does not explain, nor adequately map, how the components disclosed in Maymudes, that arguably correspond to the devices called out in the claims, can be viewed as interacting with each other in the manner claimed. Nor does the Examiner draw a correspondence between the components of Maymudes and those of the claims - different from the correspondence argued by Appellants - that would demonstrate anticipation by Maymudes. Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 under Â§ 102. CONCLUSIONS For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. We also do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-21, which claims depend from claims 1, 6, 11, or 16. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21. REVERSED 5