Ex Parte Quinn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 7, 2016

13010916 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/010,916 0112112011 Liam B. Quinn 34456 7590 07111/2016 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP 8200 N. MOP AC EXPY. SUITE 280 AUSTIN, TX 78759 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. DC-18701 3637 EXAMINER MAGLO, EMMANUEL K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2414 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/11/2016 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): docketing@larsonnewman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LIAM B. QUINN, CARLTON A. ANDREWS, and MARK L. REHMANN Appeal2015-002031 Application 13/010,916 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLL. SILVERMAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 16-19, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 9-15 have been cancelled. App. Br. 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Dell Products, LP as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appellants further identify Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company and Bank of America as having a security interest in the instant application. Id. Appeal2015-002031 Application 13/010,916 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is "[a]n information handling system [that] includes a network interface, a radio frequency interface, and a processor." Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with the relevant limitations emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A personal computer comprising: a network interface; a radio frequency interface selected from the group consisting of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi Direct, Wireless USB, and any combination thereof; and a processor configured to: activate a headset profile when a headset is determined to be present, the headset profile including directing audio communication associated with a telephone call through the headset; activate a portable communication device profile by establishing a connection with a portable communication device through the radio frequency interface when the portable communication device is determined to be present and a headset is determined not to be present, the portable communication device profile including instructing the portable communication device to signal an incoming call and directing audio communications associated with the telephone call through the portable communication device; activate a built-in profile when a headset and a portable communication device are determined not to be present, the built-in profile including directing audio communications associated with the telephone call through a speaker and microphone associated with the personal computer; receive a call initiation signal from a remote system through the network interface; 2 Appeal2015-002031 Application 13/010,916 signal the portable communication device via the connection of an incoming call; receive an instruction from the portable communication device via the connection to accept the call; accept a call from the remote system; and route audio signals related to the call between the portable communication device and the remote system through the personal computer when a portable communication device profile is active. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Patel US 2007/0280200 Al Dec. 6, 2007 Kim US 2010/0081488 Al Apr. 1, 2010 Zheng US 2012/0115501 Al May 10, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Kim. Final Act. 3---6. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Kim and Patel. Final Act. 6-7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. 3 Appeal2015-002031 Application 13/010,916 Claims 1, 5, and 16 Appellants argue Zheng does not teach or suggest a personal computer with a processor configured to "signal the portable communication device via the connection of an incoming call," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue the vibration used to alert the user of an incoming call takes place in the device the Examiner mapped to the personal computer and not the personal communication device. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3--4. The Examiner finds Zheng teaches signaling the portable communication device that there is an incoming call. Final Act. 4. The Examiner further notes "Zheng does not explicitly teach ... using the connection established as part of the portable communications device profile to signaling the portable communication device of an incoming call." Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner finds Kim teaches sending cellular phone signals received by a device are simultaneously re-transmitted to a receiver via a wireless protocol. Id. (citing Kim Fig. I, i-f 17). The Examiner concludes "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Zheng with Kim to provide VoIP services remotely through the personal computer." Final Act. 5. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 4 Appeal2015-002031 Application 13/010,916 425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellants focus on the teachings of a single reference and not the combination of references the Examiner relies on, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in finding Zheng teaches the "receiving an instruction" limitation as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8. The entirety of Appellants' contention is: Id. In regards to receiving an instruction from the portable communication device (Device B) via the connection to accept the call and accepting the call from the remote system (Device C), the Examiner refers to "a call handling unit [of Device A] may receive an indication of an incoming telephone call and provide the user capabilities to answer the incoming call" as described in Zheng, paragraph [0089]. However, Zheng does not teach or suggest "receiving an instruction from the portable communications device via the connection to accept the call" as claimed. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner finds the disputed limitation is taught by paragraph 98 of Zheng, not Appellants' cited paragraph 89. See Final Act. 4. Furthermore, Appellants merely summarize the claim language, quote the Examiner's finding, and make a naked assertion that the prior art does not teach the claim limitation. That is insufficient to raise an argument that that Examiner erred. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 requires "more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art"); see also 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for 5 Appeal2015-002031 Application 13/010,916 separate patentability of the claim"). Because Appellants have not identified any specific errors in the Examiner's findings, "the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejection of claims 5 and 16, which are argued on the same grounds. Claims 2, 6, and 17 Appellants argue Zheng does not teach the additional limitations of claim 2. App. Br. 9. According to Appellants, the cited section of Zheng does not teach (1) a processor in a personal computer (device A) receiving a phone number from a portable communication device (device B), (2) personal computer (device A) establishing a call with a second remote system (device C), and (3) the personal computer (device A) routing the call between portable communication device (device B) and remote system, (device C): Id. If service provider system 452 corresponds to Device C, there is no disclosure of Device A receiving a phone number from Device B. Alternatively, if service provider system 452 corresponds to Device B, communication between Device A and Device C are routed through Device C, rather than communication between Device B and Device C being routed through Device A, as claimed. The Examiner finds Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 2. Final Act. 5---6 (citing Zheng i-fi-f l 01, 102). 6 Appeal2015-002031 Application 13/010,916 Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Zheng teaches that a mobile computing device may send information to the server system 452 to place a call to a remote device via Public Switched Telephone Network 462. Zheng i-f 101. Using Appellants' device designations, we agree with the Examiner that if the server system is considered device A, the mobile computing device is considered device B and the device associated with the phone number is device C, then Zheng paragraph 101 teaches or suggests all of the additional limitations of claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiners' rejection of claim 2, along with the rejection of claims 6 and 17, which are argued on the same grounds. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 18, and 19 With respect to dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 18, and 19, Appellants merely contend that because the additional reference used in the rejection of these claims (Patel) does not cure the deficiencies in claim 1, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 9-10. Because we determine there are no deficiencies associated with claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 16-19. 7 Appeal2015-002031 Application 13/010,916 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 8