Ex Parte Thayer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

13629074 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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.
13/629,074 09/27/2012 Karen E. Thayer 83009840 7811
22879
HP Tnr
7590 01/18/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
PANT, RANJAN
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAREN E. THAYER, JEFFREY J. WALLS,
DEREK LUKASIK, and MARK E. NYLUND
Appeal 2016-000723
Application 13/629,074
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1—20. App. Br. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP,
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 24, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Reply
Brief (filed October 19, 2015, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
Appeal 2016-000723
Application 13/629,074
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for viewing applications on
a hand-held device. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1,17, and 20 are independent. The claims have not been
argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some
formatting added:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
comprising instructions, the instructions when executed by a
processor causing the processor to:
receive at a kiosk computer system, from a first mobile
computing device, first data indicative of a first selected content
application associated with the first mobile computing device,
the first selected content application to be accessed via a
remoting application;
receive at the kiosk computer system, from a second
mobile computing device, second data indicative of a second
selected content application associated with the second mobile
computing device, the second selected content application to be
accessed via the remoting application;
contemporaneously:
August 21, 2015, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed October 21, 2014, “Final
Act.”), and the Amended Specification (filed September 18, 2014, “Spec.”)
for their respective details.
2
Appeal 2016-000723
Application 13/629,074
display, at a first display sector of a display device
that is part of the kiosk computer system, a first view of
the first selected content application associated with the
first mobile computing device as executing at the kiosk
computer system;
display, at a second display sector of the display
device, a second view of the second selected content
application associated with the second mobile computing
device as executing at the kiosk computer system; and
send, for display, at least a portion of the first view
to the first mobile computing device, and at least a portion
of the second view to the second mobile computing
device.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
ShamRao
Bums
Muni
Thorkelsson, et al.
(“Thorkelsson”)
Duggal
US 2003/0088647 Al
US 2005/0021509 Al
US 7,387,250 B2
US 2011/0208801 Al
US 8,185,581 B2
May 8, 2003
Jan. 27, 2005
June 17, 2008
Aug. 25, 2011
May 22, 2012
Mullis, et al. US 2014/0006451 Al
(“Mullis”)
Jan. 2, 2014
(filed June 30, 2012)
Stan Kurkovsky and Manish Shah, Integrating Diverse IT Areas: Bridging
the Gap Between Multimedia Kiosks and the Wireless World, in Information
Technology: Researdch and Education, 2004. ITRE 2004 2nd International
Conference. 28 June—1 July 2004. Pages 34—38.
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1,2, 10, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Mullis. Final Act. 3—5.
3
Appeal 2016-000723
Application 13/629,074
2. Claims 3, 4, and 8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Mullis and Bums. Final Act. 5—7.
3. Claims 5, 7, 17, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Mullis and ShamRao. Final Act. 7—11.
4. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Mullis, Bums, and ShamRao. Final Act. 11—14.
5. Claims 6 and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Mullis and Duggal. Final Act. 14—16.
6. Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Mullis, Thorkelsson, and Muni. Final Act. 16—17.
7. Claims 12—14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Mullis and Kurkovsky. Final Act. 17—18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—20 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred.
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6—21.
Claims 1,2,10,15, and 16: Anticipation by Mullis
Appellants argue these claims as a group in view of the limitations of
Claim 1. App. Br. 10.
First and second selected content applications.
The Examiner finds Mullis discloses a first mobile user connects with
the kiosk to request information (i.e., the claimed ‘first data indicative of a
first selected content application'’'’). Final Act. 3 (citing Mullis 122). The
4
Appeal 2016-000723
Application 13/629,074
Examiner finds Mullis discloses a first mobile user connects with the kiosk
to request information (i.e., the claimed second selected content application
to be accessed via the remoting application. Id. (citing Mullis 135,11. 12—
14).
Appellants contend Claim 1 recites “two distinct applications,” i.e.,
first and second selected content applications. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue
Mullis fails to disclose that the “different information” displayed by the
kiosk is produced by “two distinct” content applications. Id. Rather,
Appellants argue, Mullis discloses a single content application (i.e., “logic
124”) displays information that is best suited to the location of the kiosk. Id.
(citing Mullis 122). Appellants contend “[wjhere a claim lists elements
separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those
elements are ‘distinct components’ of the patented invention.” Id. (quoting
Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249,
1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
The Examiner answers Mullis discloses multiple mobile device users
can concurrently request information from the same kiosk. Ans. 2. In
response, the kiosk may send different information to each user. The
Examiner finds that, for example, where two users concurrently use a kiosk,
one half of the kiosk displays information associated with the first user while
the second half of the kiosk displays information associated with the second
user. Id. at 3.
We find the claims recite first and second selected content
applications, but the Examiner only points to a single application, the
“remoting application.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds the different
content that is sent to the two devices “appears to be behaving as and
5
Appeal 2016-000723
Application 13/629,074
executing at the kiosk as two separate content applications.” Ans. 3.
Notwithstanding appearances, Mullis discloses, and the Examiner has found,
only a single content application, whereas the claims require at least two
such applications.
Claims 3-9,11-14, and 17-20: Obviousness
The Examiner does not apply any of the secondary references to the
limitations discussed above. See Ans. 6.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 10, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
REVERSED.
The rejections of Claims 3—9, 11—14, and 17—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
6