Ex Parte Teng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

13189706 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/189,706 07/25/2011
57035 7590 05/02/2018
KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC
Attention: Tricia Riddle
430 Davis Drive
Suite 150
Morrisville, NC 27560
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arther Sing Hook Teng
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.
P38022/1020P38022 1756
EXAMINER
SAID, MANSOUR M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2018 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):
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
docketing@kdbfirm.com
intel@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARTHER SING HOOK TENG
Appeal2017-011509
Application 13/189,706 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-21. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation. Br. 3.
2 Claims 8 and 14 are canceled. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-011509
Application 13/189,706
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to presenting multimedia content on an
external display from a mobile device, where the mobile device is used to control
the external display. Spec. i-fi-f 10-14; Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is representative and is
reproduced below.
1. An article comprising a non-transitory machine-readable
storage medium containing instructions that when executed
enable a system to:
present multimedia content on an integrated touch
sensitive display of a mobile device;
detect an external display coupled to the mobile device;
receive information to include an indication of a digital
input device to control the external display;
replace the multimedia content displayed on the
integrated touch sensitive display of the mobile device with the
digital input device to control the external device based on
detecting the external display is coupled to the mobile device
and receiving the information;
present the multimedia content on the external display;
and
control the multimedia content on the external display
based on information received at the digital input device on the
integrated touch sensitive display of the mobile device.
Independent claims 10 and 16 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and
also require "determining a digital input device to supplement the external
input device to control the external display." Br. 20-22.
2
Appeal2017-011509
Application 13/189,706
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-21 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Marano (US 2010/0138780 Al; published June 3,
2010) in view of Pyhalammi (US 2006/0090122 Al; published Apr. 27, 2006) and
further in view of Lee (US 7,844,301 B2; issued Nov. 30, 2010).
ISSUE
Appellant argues, on pages 15-18 of the Appeal Brief, the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 is in error. These arguments present
us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding Marano, Pyhalammi, and Lee teach or
suggest a digital input device (interface) to control the external display,
displaying the digital input device on the integrated touch sensitive
display and controlling the multimedia content on the external display
based on information received at the digital input device on the integrated
touch sensitive display, as required in claim 1, and similarly required in
claims 10 and 16?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments.
Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-21.
3 The Examiner's Final Rejection lists claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, and 16-20 in the
preamble to the rejection, but as Appellant acknowledges, claims 4, 9, and 15 are
included in the rejection. Final Act. 2, 5; Br. 14.
3
Appeal2017-011509
Application 13/189,706
The Examiner finds Marano teaches a mobile device with a touch sensitive
display coupled to an external display where the content from the mobile device is
displayed on the external display and the mobile device controls the external
display with a digital input device, i.e., virtual input device (265) on the touch
sensitive display. Final Act. 2-3, 8; see Ans. 2--4; Marano i-f 101, Figs. 2A, 14A,
14B. The Examiner finds Marano does not teach the mobile device presenting
multimedia content and relies on Pyhalammi' s teaching of editing multimedia
content between a master device and slave devices connected to an external display
to teach presenting multimedia content. Final Act. 3; see Ans. 4--5. Further, the
Examiner finds the combination of Marano and Pyhalammi does not explicitly
teach replacing the multimedia content on the touch sensitive display of the mobile
device with the digital input device. Final Act. 4; see Ans. 5. However, the
Examiner combines the teachings of Marano and Pyhalammi with Lee's teaching
of a mobile device with two display screens for displaying multimedia content or
replacing displayed multimedia content with a digital input device, i.e., a
multimedia control input function, on one of the screens. Final Act. 4; see Ans. 5;
Lee col. 2, 11. 6-19, col. 4, 11. 55---65.
Appellant argues the combination of Marano, Pyhalammi, and Lee does not
teach a digital input device that controls an external display. Br. 15. Specifically,
Appellant argues that Marano does not teach the digital input device, because
Marano teaches controlling an external display with an external input to the
external display. Br. 15-16; see Marano i-f 101.
We are not persuaded, because Appellant has not addressed the Examiner's
rejection as proposed. The Examiner relies on Marano's virtual input device (265)
on the touchscreen display of the mobile device as teaching the digital input
device, not the input to the external display. See Final Act. 2-3, 8; Ans. 2--4;
4
Appeal2017-011509
Application 13/189,706
Marano i-f 101, Figs. 2A, 14A, 14B. Appellant fails to address Marano's teaching
of a digital input device controlling an external display, as articulated by the
Examiner. See Br. 15-16. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Marano, Pyhalammi, and Lee
teaches a digital input device that controls an external display.
Appellant further argues Pyhalammi does not teach a digital input device,
receiving indication of a connected digital input device, or controlling an external
display with a digital input device. Br. 16-17.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument, which addresses the
teachings of the Pyhalammi reference individually, although the rejection is based
on the combination of Marano, Pyhalammi, and Lee references. Nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The
Examiner relies on Marano to teach a digital input device that connects to and
controls an external display, and relies on Pyhalammi to teach presenting
multimedia content on an external display. See Final Act. 2-3, 8; see Ans. 2--4;
Marano i-fi-1101, 265, Figs. 2A, 14A. Furthermore, we note Marano teaches
presenting multimedia content. Marano i-fi-1 89, 269, Figs. 2C, 2D, 4C, 4D, 5C,
14B. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
the teachings of Marano and Pyhalammi to allow for group editing and viewing of
multimedia content. Final Act 4. Appellant's argument does not address the
rejection as proposed by the Examiner, and, thus, has not demonstrated that the
Examiner erred.
Further, Appellant argues Lee does not remedy deficiencies in Marano and
Pyhalammi. Br. 16. As discussed above, Marano teaches a digital input device
5
Appeal2017-011509
Application 13/189,706
connecting to and controlling an external device. Therefore, we are not persuaded
by Appellant's argument that the combination of Marano, Pyhalammi, and Lee, as
proposed by the Examiner, fails to teach these limitations. As such, Appellant has
not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Marano,
Pyhalammi, and Lee teaches a digital input device to control the external display,
displaying the digital input device on the integrated touch sensitive display and
controlling the multimedia content on the external display based on information
received at the digital input device on the integrated touch sensitive display, as
required by claim 1.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Appellant argues the combination of references
does not teach digital input device, and, as such, cannot teach a digital input device
supplementing an external input device. Br. 17.
As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the
combination of Marano, Pyhalammi, and Lee, as proposed by the Examiner, does
not teach a digital input device. As such, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Marano, Pyhalammi, and Lee
teaches a digital input device supplementing an external input device, as required
by claims 10 and 16.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 16. Claims 2-7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-
21 depend from one of claims 1, 10, and 16. Br. 17. Appellant does not present
separate arguments for claims 2-7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-21. Id. Thus, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-21 for the same
reasons as set forth above for claims 1, 10, and 16.
6
Appeal2017-011509
Application 13/189,706
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7