Ex Parte SEO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2017

13748229 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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.
13/748,229 01/23/2013 Joonkyu SEO 1398-563
(YPF201109-0032)
6948
66547 7590 12/18/2017
THF FARRFT T T AWFTRM PC
EXAMINER
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
SULTANA, AFROZA
Melville, NY 11747 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2017 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):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOONKYU SEO, KYUNGA KANG, JIYEON KWAK,
HYUNJIN KIM, and JUYOUN LEE
Appeal 2017-006865
Application 13/748,229
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-006865
Application 13/748,229
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
providing a service in interoperation with peripheral devices, and a system
supporting the same. Spec. 1:14-16. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for performing a service in a portable terminal with a
service interoperation device, the method comprising:
searching, by the portable terminal, external devices;
identifying the service interoperation device corresponding to a
characteristic of the service among the searched external devices,
wherein identifying the service interoperation device includes
acquiring a profile of each the searched external device from the
searched external devices, and if the profile cannot be acquired from
the searched external devices, acquiring the profile from a profile
server storing profiles;
recommending the service interoperation device, wherein, if
multiple service interoperation devices are identified, prioritizing the
multiple service interoperation devices based on the characteristic of
the service and recommending the service interoperation device based
on the prioritized multiple service interoperation devices;
classifying the recommended service interoperation device into
one of an input device, an output device, and a control input device;
determining a function of the portable terminal based on the
classified service interoperation device; and
performing the service in interoperation with the recommended
service interoperation device.
2
Appeal 2017-006865
Application 13/748,229
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-10, 12, and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Al-Shaykh et al.
(US 2011/0131520; published June 2, 2011) (“Al-Shaykh”), Tomay et al.
(US 8,819,116 Bl; issued Aug. 26, 2014) (“Tomay”), and Kreiner et al.
(US 2012/0146918 Al; published June 14, 2012) (“Kreiner”).
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Al-Shaykh, Tomay, Kreiner, and Park
(US 2005/0157748 Al; published July 21, 2005).
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Al-Shaykh, Tomay, Kreiner, and Jeon
et al. (US 2011/0093567 Al; published Apr. 21, 2011) (“Jeon”).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Al-
Shaykh, Tomay, and Kreiner teaches or suggests “identifying the service
interoperation device corresponding to a characteristic of the service among
the searched external devices, wherein identifying the service interoperation
device includes acquiring a profile of each the searched external device from
the searched external devices,” as recited in independent claim 1?
Appellants contend Al-Shaykh, in view of Tomay and Kreiner, does
not teach or suggest “identifying the service interoperation device
corresponding to a characteristic of the service among the searched
external devices.” App. Br. 7. Appellants cite Al-Shaykh 77 and 83 and
3
Appeal 2017-006865
Application 13/748,229
conclude “[njowhere in Al-Shaykh is it taught that the mobile device
searches for the rendering devices.” App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 2^1.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Al-Shaykh describes “a
media application on the mobile device to share media content with
rendering devices in the home network.” Al-Shaykh ^ 77. Al-Shayk further
states “[t]he available rendering devices may be any rendering device
capable of rendering the media content received.” Al-Shaykh ^ 81; see also
Ans. 2. Al-Shaykh ^112, relied upon by the Examiner to teach “searching
. . . external devices” (Final Act. 3—4), describes “[rendering devices may
be added to and/or may be removed from the home network 20, and the
mobile device may identify the additions and/or the deletions. For example,
the mobile device 11 may use the standard UPnP discovery protocol to
determine changes to the available rendering devices.” Appellants have not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings that the claimed “searched
external devices” are taught by Al-Shaykh’s available media rendering
devices, which are discovered, i.e., searched, by the mobile device.
Appellants further contend that Al-Shaykh, in view of Tomay and
Kreiner, does not teach or suggest “identifying the service interoperation
device” by “acquiring a profile of each the searched external device from the
searched external devices.” App. Br. 7-8. Appellants argue Al-Shaykh
teaches visually indicating a target rendering device, but a “device to which
media content is being sent is not equivalent to ‘acquiring a profile of each
the searched external device from the searched external devices.’” App.
Br. 11. Rather, Appellants contend Al-Shaykh’s rendering device is selected
from a pre-determined list of devices, not based on profiles of the external
devices. Reply Br. 2-3.
4
Appeal 2017-006865
Application 13/748,229
Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants broadly define “profile” as “information with respect to
characteristics of the searched peripheral external device.” App. Br. 11
(citing Spec. 14:23 - 15:2). The Examiner finds Al-Shaykh recommends a
target rendering device based on the device’s media capabilities. Ans. 2
(citing Al-Shaykh 110). Al-Shaykh ^ 111, further teaches the mobile
device updates the available rendering devices to reflect changes in the
media application: for example, if music is added to a photo slideshow, the
target rendering device changes from a digital photo frame with no music
capability to a television with music capability. In other words, the mobile
device searches and selects an appropriate rendering device based on its
media characteristics, not a pre-determined list. Thus, we agree that Al-
Shaykh teaches the claimed selecting a device based on “acquiring a profile”
of information with respect to characteristics of the searched peripheral
external device.
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s finding that
the rendering device must inherently provide its profile information to the
mobile device, “ [otherwise the mobile device 11 is not able [to] send the
different types of media to different types of rendering device[s].” Ans. 2.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Al-Shaykh teaches
“acquiring a profile of each the searched external device from the searched
external devices.” Id.
Appellants further contend the combination of Al-Shaykh, Tomay,
and Kreiner does not teach the claimed steps of “recommending the service
interoperation device” and “performing the service.” App. Br. 11-13; Reply
Br. 3. However, Appellants’ arguments are based on the above contentions
5
Appeal 2017-006865
Application 13/748,229
regarding “identifying the service interoperation device,” and, for the same
reasons as discussed above, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Al-Shaykh, Tomay, and Kreiner teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations.
Issue 2\ Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Al-
Shaykh, Tomay, and Kreiner teaches or suggests “if the profile cannot be
acquired from the searched external devices, acquiring the profile from a
profile server storing profiles,” as recited in independent claim 1?
Appellants contend the combination of Al-Shaykh, Tomay, and
Kreiner fails to teach the condition “if the profile cannot be acquired from
the searched external device,” and without teaching this condition, the
combination cannot teach “if the profile cannot be acquired from the
searched external devices, acquiring the profile from a profile server storing
profiles.” App. Br. 9. Appellants argue Tomay teaches a fulfilment server
that determines a device type and device capability, and transmits the same
to a device capabilities server, but Tomay does not teach the disputed
limitation. App. Br. 10. Appellants further contend that “[njowhere in
Tomay is it taught to obtain a profile of a searched external device from the
searched external device and, if the profile is not available from the searched
external device, to obtain the profile from a profile server.” Reply Br. 6.
Appellants’ arguments against Tomay alone are not persuasive of
error, as the Examiner relied upon Al-Shaykh to teach “acquiring a
profile . . . from the searched devices,” and Tomay to teach “if the profile
cannot be acquired from the searched external devices, acquiring the profile
6
Appeal 2017-006865
Application 13/748,229
from a profile server storing profiles.” See Final Act. 3-5. One cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Al-
Shaykh teaches “acquiring a profile . . . from the searched devices.” Ans. 2.
Appellants’ characterization of Tomay (App. Br. 10) is consistent with the
Examiner’s findings that Tomay’s device capabilities server, which provides
media device capabilities, teaches “acquiring the profile from a profile
server storing profiles.” Ans. 4 (citing Tomay col. 8:63-66). Tomay
teaches the purpose of the device capabilities server is to provide the
capability information when the information cannot be discerned from the
device itself. Tomay col. 1:23-30. Thus, we agree that Tomay teaches or
suggests the condition of “if the profile cannot be acquired from the
searched external devices,” i.e., capabilities cannot be discerned from the
device itself, “acquiring the profile from a profile server storing profiles,”
i.e., media device capabilities are provided by the server.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Al-Shaykh, Tomay, and Kreiner teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Al-
Shaykh, Tomay, and Kreiner teaches or suggests “classifying the
recommended service interoperation device into one of an input device, an
output device, and a control input device” and “determining a function of the
7
Appeal 2017-006865
Application 13/748,229
portable terminal based on the classified service interoperation device,” as
recited in independent claim 1?
Appellants contend Kreiner’s mobile device 101 works as a remote
control, which works as nothing more than a control input device, and is
“[not] classified into one of an input device, and output, or a control input
device.” App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 7. Appellants argue the mobile
remote control device is not associated with sound, thus it is not an output
device; and the mobile remote control device is different from a keyboard,
mouse, or joystick, thus it is not an input device. Reply Br. 7.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. The plain
meaning of “classifying the recommended service interoperation device into
one of an input device, an output device, and a control input device” merely
requires the device to function as an input device, an output device, or a
control input device. Appellants concede Kreiner’s mobile remote control
device is a control input device. App. Br. 13. Appellants also provide a
remote control as an example of an input device. Reply Br. 7 (citing
Appellants’ Fig. 3A). Thus, we agree that Kreiner teaches a mobile remote
control device that is at least one of a control input device and an input
device.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Al-Shaykh, Tomay, and Kreiner teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations.1
1 We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified
by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
However, we note that the Examiner has interpreted “classifying the
recommended service interoperation device” to encompass Kreiner’s mobile
8
Appeal 2017-006865
Application 13/748,229
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 16, 18, and 20, which are
argued on the same basis as claim 1. App. Br. 14. Appellants do not
separately argue the dependent claims (App. Br. 14), and, therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims for the same reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1-
20.
AFFIRMED
device, rather than an external media device. We find this to be harmless
error, as Al-Shaykh appears to teach classifying external media devices into
input or output devices. See Al-Shaykh ^ 81, 111-112.
9