Ex Parte Thayer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 13, 201713629074 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation