Ex Parte SEO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 2018

14605316 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/605,316 01/26/2015 68103 7590 12/31/2018 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jangseok SEO 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. 0203-1502-1 1292 EXAMINER CHUNG, MONG-SHUNE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/31/2018 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): usdocketing@jeffersonip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JANGSEOK SEO, HYUNGWON JUNG, and TAEGUN PARK Appeal2018-002510 Application 14/605,316 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JASON J. CHUNG, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-16, and 18-30. Br. 8. 2 Claims 2 and 17 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Br. 2. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act."), mailed November 3, 2016; the Advisory Action ("Adv. Act."), mailed January 20, 2017; the Appeal Brief ("Br."), filed April 28, 2017; the corrected Claim Appendix ("Corr. App 'x"), filed May 31, 2017; and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), mailed October 13, 2017. Appeal2018-002510 Application 14/605,316 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention is a wearable electronic device that displays content from an external electronic device. Abstract. Claims 1, 11, 16, and 23 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis: 1. A wearable electronic device comprising: a wireless communicator configured to establish a communication connection with an external electronic device; and a user interface control module configured to: receive, via the wireless communicator and from the external electronic device, content corresponding to an application to be executed by the external electronic device and information comprising one or more instructions to control one or more specified user interfaces associated with the received content of the application to be presented by the wearable electronic device for providing the received content, and present at least one portion of the content using at least one user interface of the one or more user interfaces corresponding to the information, wherein the information further comprises instructions for controlling at least one of a type, a color, a position, a blank space, a size, an arrangement, a background, a state, and an identifier of the one or more specified user interfaces. This claim appears in the response dated August 9, 2016 on page 2, which is the last-entered amendment. THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies on the following as evidence: Weng et al. US 2014/0189584 Al July 3, 2014 2 Appeal2018-002510 Application 14/605,316 Sony Ericsson Developer World, Sony Ericsson LiveView(TM) (Sept. 27, 2010), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= KN2qoAOFflIQ/ ("SEDW"); Chris Davies, Sony Ericsson Live View is Bluetooth mini-display for Android 2.x phones [Video] [Updated] (Sept. 28, 2010), http://www. slashgear. com/ sony-eri csson-li veview-is-b 1 uetooth-mini- disp lay-for-andro id-2-x-phones-28104730/ ("Davies"); Jay's Gadgets, 3 of 3 Sony Ericsson Live view review and tests with Galaxy TAB and Custom Watch Band (Dec. 11, 2010), https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=eCt_HpdW xao/ ("Jay"); Handydroid, Open Watch AP!for LiveView(TM) (Nov. 25, 2010), https ://play. google.com/ store/ apps/ details?id=org.handydroid. liveview &hl =e n/ ("Handydroid"); Three UK, How to download an app on your Android phone: F acebook (Mar. 8, 2013), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OET2Eitjm2k/ ("Three"); Ulinnuha, Sony Ericsson Live View- Tech New Reviews (June 20, 2012), http://phonecomputerreviews.blogspot.de/2012/06/sony-ericsson- liveview.html ("Ulinnuha"); TechCloud, How to Create Custom Watch Face for Samsung Galaxy Gear Smartwatchjust in Few Seconds (Oct. 8, 2013), https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=6r0-_SREDj QI ("Tech Cloud"). THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over SEDW and TechCloud. Final Act. 5-8. 3 Appeal2018-002510 Application 14/605,316 Claims 5, 6, 9, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over SEDW, TechCloud, and Jay. Final Act. 8-11. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over SEDW, TechCloud, Jay, and Weng. Final Act. 11-12. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over SEDW, TechCloud, and Weng. Final Act. 12-13. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over SEDW, TechCloud, and Davies. Final Act. 13-14. Claims 11-15, 23-26, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over SEDW, Ulinnuha, and TechCloud. Final Act. 14--18. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over SEDW, Ulinnuha, TechCloud, and Three. Final Act. 19. Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over SEDW, Ulinnuha, TechCloud, and Handydroid. Final Act. 19-20. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SEDW AND TECHCLOUD The Examiner finds that SEDW teaches every limitation recited in independent claims 1 and 16 except for the recited information that comprises instructions. Final Act. 5-8. In concluding that the subject matter of claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious, the Examiner cites Tech Cloud as teaching this feature. Id. at 6-7. Appellants argue that TechCloud's content and information "is specifically associated with the external electronic device" and "TechCloud's smartphone is specific to the smartwatch." Br. 7. According to Appellants, "TechCloud does not teach that the smartwatch receives 4 Appeal2018-002510 Application 14/605,316 content corresponding to an application, which is not specifically associated with the smartwatch." Id. We decide this appeal using the last-entered claim amendments under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.121, which is the amendment submitted on August 9, 2016. Accord Corr. App'x, cover page (explaining that the corrected Brief includes "claims corresponding to the claims entered in the amendment filed August 9, 2016."). The last-entered claims do not recite the limitation "which is not specifically associated with the wearable electronic device." Accord Ans. 4. Notably, this limitation does appear in the Briefs section entitled "APPENDIX A-APPEALED CLAIMS," as originally filed. Br. 10, 13- 14. Consequently, a Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief was sent to Appellants on May 30, 2017. Appellants responded with a set of claims similar to those of August 9, 2016 in that the corrected claims omit the limitation "which is not specifically associated with the wearable electronic device."3 See Corr. App'x 1, 4. Apart from arguing that the prior art lacks the non-entered limitation, Appellants do not argue persuasively that claims 1 and 16 otherwise exclude TechCloud's application, content, and information. Br. 7. In the last- entered amendment, claim 1 recites "content corresponding to an application to be executed by the external electronic device." As for the information, claim 1 on appeal recites "information comprising one or more instructions to control one or more specified user interfaces associated with the received 3 Notably, the claims in the Corrected Brief are slightly different than the claims on appeal. For instance, claim 1 in the Corrected Brief recites "a user interface controller configured to," but claim 1 on appeal recites "a user interface control module configured to." Compare Corr.App'x 1, with Response dated August 9, 2016, p. 2. 5 Appeal2018-002510 Application 14/605,316 content of the application to be presented by the wearable electronic device for providing the received content." Other than these recited features, claim 1 does not limit the recited application's association with other external devices. Claim 16 recites similar limitations. The Specification does not define the content, information, and applications to limit their association in the way that Appellants argue. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 7 6 ( describing one way to display a representation corresponding to an application), ,r 187 (explaining that the embodiments are illustrative and non-limiting). Thus, under a broad, but reasonable, interpretation, claims 1 and 16 cover content, information, and applications specifically associated with the smartwatch. Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's finding that TechCloud teaches receiving instructions to control a user interface. See Ans. 5; Final Act. 6. Indeed, Appellants acknowledge that "TechCloud describes customizing the background of a watchface for a smartwatch." Br. 7. Essentially, the basis for Appellants' argument is the assumption that the claims prohibit an association with the wearable electronic device. See id. But the last-entered claims are not limited in this way. Thus, Appellants' arguments about the recited content, information, and application are unpersuasive. Also, Appellants do not squarely rebut the Examiner's finding that SEDW teaches receiving content corresponding to an application to be executed at an external electronic device. Final Act. 6 (citing SEDW 1-2, 4--7). Specifically, the Examiner finds that SEDW teaches a Live View device is a wearable electronic device. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that the Live View device connects to another mobile device-i.e., the recited 6 Appeal2018-002510 Application 14/605,316 external electronic device. Id. According to the Examiner, this wireless connection allows the mobile device's applications to display information on the Live View device. Id. Instead of rebutting these findings, Appellants' arguments focus on TechCloud's content and information. See Br. 5-7. In this regard, Appellants' argument does not address the Examiner's reliance on SEDW in the obviousness rejection. See id. But one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually when the rejection is based on a combination. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981). For the additional reason that the arguments do not consider the collective teachings of SEDW and TechCloud, we find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 16. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 18, and 19, which are not argued separately with particularity. See Br. 8. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS In arguing for the patentability of claims 5-7, 9-15, and 20-30, Appellants refer to the arguments presented for independent claims 1 and 16. Br. 8. Like claims 1 and 16, independent claims 11 and 23 do not require the limitation "which is not specifically associated with the wearable electronic device." Rather, claims 11 and 23 recite transmitting and obtaining content and information similar to the content and information received by the devices recited by claims 1 and 16. Thus, for the reasons discussed in connection with claims 1 and 16, we also sustain the rejections of claims 11 and 23, and dependent claims 5-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 20-22, and 24--30, which are not argued separately with particularity. See id. 7 Appeal2018-002510 Application 14/605,316 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-16, and 18- 30. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 8