Ex Parte Piccionelli

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2017

13828450 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/828,450 03/14/2013 Gregory A. Piccionelli GAP10006C1CIPC1 4106 116438 7590 Apogee Law Group 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92618 EXAMINER NGUYEN, KEVIN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2017 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): jcwilk@goapogee.com mara@goapogee.com docketing@goapogee.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY A. PICCIONELLI Appeal 2017-005650 Application 13/828,450 Technology Center 2600 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3—22. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 3—6, 8—11, 13—16, and 18—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Herzen (US 7,312,773 Bl; Dec. 25, 2007). Final Act. 4—9. Claims 7, 12, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Herzen and Pinkerman (US 2004/0248073 Al; Dec. 9, 2004). Final Act. 8—9. We affirm. Appeal 2017-005650 Application 13/828,450 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “an ornamental system, apparatus and method that is dynamically modifiable.” Abstract. Claim 3 is illustrative and reproduced below: 3. An ornament system comprising: a plurality of ornamental members, each ornamental member having a body, a signal receiver configured to receive display data, and at least one display device configured to display user-perceptible information; a processing device having a display screen and a user input device, the processing device configured to display a visual image on the display screen representing an arrangement of the plurality of ornamental members, wherein the processing device is in signal communication with at least two ornamental member; and a processor configured to communicate and enable selection of display data, wherein the user-perceptible information displayed on the display device is based on the display data received from the processor; wherein the processing device is configured to transmit the selected display data for the plurality of ornamental members to the processor, controlling the display devices associated with the plurality of ornamental members to display user-perceptible information based on the visual image of the arrangement of the plurality of ornamental members on the display screen of the processing device. 2 Appeal 2017-005650 Application 13/828,450 ANALYSIS The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3-6, 8-11,13-16, and 18-21 over Herzen The Examiner finds Herzen teaches all limitations of claim 3. Final Act. 4—6. Appellant presents the following principal arguments: i. “Herzen is directed toward programming and controlling a single ornament. While each ornament may include more than one display, Herzen does not teach or suggest controlling, via a processing device, more than one ornament.” App. Br. 9; see also App. Br. 10 (“The signal communication is with at least two ornamental members at the same time.”). ii. “Herzen does not teach the processing device displaying a visual image on the display screen representing an arrangement of the plurality of ornamental members. Nothing in Herzen teaches using a processing device in communication with more than one ornament that displays a representation of the physical arrangement of the plurality of ornaments on a screen. ” App. Br. 10. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We do not see any error in the Examiner’s findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Regarding Appellant’s arguments (i) and (ii), the Examiner finds Herzen teaches (claim 3) “a processing device having a display screen and a user input device, the processing device configured to display a visual image on the display screen representing an arrangement of the plurality of 3 Appeal 2017-005650 Application 13/828,450 ornamental members, wherein the processing device is in signal communication with at least two ornamental member.” Final Act. 5 (citing Herzen col. 10,11. 1-16; col. 1,11. 15-18; col. 11,11. 11-17). Herzen (col. 10,11. 1—16) discloses programming an ornament to display a message, the programming being performed with a personal computer. Herzen (col. 1,11. 15—18; col. 11,11. 11—17) discloses multiple ornaments. Thus, we find Herzen discloses multiple ornaments, and discloses programming an ornament. The Examiner reasons: “It would [have been an] obvious choice in design to make duplicate parts or multiple parts for a multiplied effect to modify the personal computer controls and programs the multiple ornaments as taught by Herzen.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 2—5. That is, the Examiner reasons, a skilled artisan would have modified Herzen to program Herzen’s multiple ornaments, as recited in claim 3. The Examiner articulated a reason for modifying Herzen supported by evidence drawn from the record that is rational on its face. See Final Act. 5 (citing Herzen col. 10,11. 1—16; col. 1,11. 15—18; col. 11,11. 11—17); see also Ans. 2—5. Appellant has not presented any particularized explanation as to why the articulated reason for modifying Herzen is in error. Although Herzen does not specifically disclose programming multiple ornaments at the same time utilizing the display screen and a user input device, one skilled in the art would recognize that Herzen, in light of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, suggests such programming of multiple ornaments for a multiplied effect. It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and we are of the opinion that such is not the case here. (See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 4 Appeal 2017-005650 Application 13/828,450 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA I960)) Thus, Appellant’s arguments (i) and (ii) do not show any Examiner error. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4—6, 8—11, 13—16, and 18—21, which are not separately argued with particularity. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7,12,17, and 22 over Herzen AND PlNKERMAN The Examiner finds Herzen and Pinkerman teach all limitations of claims 7, 12, 17, and 22. Final Act. 8—9. Appellant presents the following principal argument: “The combination of Herzen in view of Pinkerman still fail[s] to teach or describe the signal communication with at least two ornamental members.” App. Br. 10. For reasons discussed above when addressing the obviousness rejection over Herzen, we find Herzen teaches signal communication with at least two ornamental members. Although Herzen does not specifically disclose programming multiple ornaments at the same time utilizing the display screen and a user input device, one skilled in the art would recognize that Herzen, in light of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, suggests such programming of multiple ornaments for a multiplied effect. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 12, 17, and 22. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3—22 is affirmed. 5 Appeal 2017-005650 Application 13/828,450 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED 6