Ex Parte WABE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 23, 2017

13800278 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 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. 13/800,278 03/13/2013 Kazuhiro WABE RYM-723-3678 5444 27562 7590 08/25/2017 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER NGANKAM, PATRICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2017 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAZUHIRO WABE, MASAKI SHIKATA, EDI TOKUNAGA, and HITOSHI SAKAI (Applicant: Nintendo Co. LTD.) Appeal 2017-005084 Application 13/800,278 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 15 and 17—24, all pending claims. Claim 16 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2017-005084 Application 13/800,278 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellants, the claims are directed to “downloading application related data of various applications.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An information processing system comprising: a display; and processing circuitry, comprising at least one processor, the processing circuitry coupled to the display and being at least configured to: execute various applications; access a network service for downloading application related data of each of the various applications; obtain active application identification information representing an application being executed or being suspended by the processing circuitry; and perform a process of displaying a page for downloading the application related data corresponding to the application represented by the obtained active application identification information. REJECTIONS Claims 1—7, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 24 stand rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Park (US 2013/0212526 Al, published Aug. 15, 2013) and Seo (US 2012/0072871 Al, published Mar. 22, 2012). Final Act. 3—18. Claims 8 and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Park, Seo, and Tsuda (US 2005/0003850 Al, published June 6, 2005). Final Act. 18—20. 2 Appeal 2017-005084 Application 13/800,278 Claims 9, 10, and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Park, Seo, Tsuda, and Otaka (US 7,742,585 B2, issued June 22, 2010). Final Act. 20-23. Claim 14 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Park, Seo, and Lee (US 2006/0160622 Al, published July 20, 2006). Final Act. 23—24. Claims 19, 22, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Park, Seo, and Reville (US 2010/0009747 Al, published Jan. 14, 2010). Final Act. 24—26. ANALYSIS Claim 1 The Examiner finds Park discloses “obtain[ing] active application identification information representing an application being executed.” Final Act. 4 (citing Park, Abstract (“obtaining information based on a current state of each application installed on the device”)). The Examiner finds Park discloses “access[ing] a network service for downloading application related data.” Id. 3 (citing Park, 143 (A processor may download an application program from “a market server”). The Examiner finds Seo discloses “displaying a page for downloading the application related data.” Id. 4 (citing Seo Tflf 59—61 (“in response to a download command input to a page provided from the application server, the screen 10 is turned to the page select screen”). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the method of performing a process of displaying a page for downloading the application related data corresponding to the application represented by the obtained active application information as taught by Seo into the 3 Appeal 2017-005084 Application 13/800,278 apparatus of Park in order to provide a smoother user experience by efficiently and quickly displaying to a user on a select screen additional information of the one or more applications available for download. Id. We understand the Examiner to find that Park discloses claim l’s “processor” “execut[ing] various applications” and “obtaining] active application identification information representing an application being executed” in view of Park’s Abstract disclosing “obtaining information based on a current state of each application installed on the device.” We understand the Examiner to find Park’s additional disclosure of a processor downloading an application program from “a market server” (Park 143) discloses claim l’s “accessing] a network service for downloading application related data.” We further understand the Examiner to find that Seo in combination with Park disclose claim 1 ’s “perform a process of displaying a page for downloading the application related data corresponding to the application represented by the obtained active application identification information” in view of Seo’s “page select screen” (1 59) in combination with Park’s disclosure of obtaining application state information and accessing a market server (Abstract, 143). We further find the Examiner to have provided “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Final Act. 4 (“in order to provide a smoother user experience by efficiently and quickly displaying to a user on a select screen additional information of the one or more applications available for download”). 4 Appeal 2017-005084 Application 13/800,278 Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 2—7) alleging error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 (Final Act. 3—4) are unpersuasive of error. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claim 1 is obvious over Park and Seo. Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 5—9. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10—14; Reply Br. 2—7) discuss various teachings of the references in isolation, without considering what the combined teachings of the references would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For instance, Appellants argue the disclosure of Park in isolation as follows: None of these figures illustrate nor suggest displaying downloadable application related data and specifically a page for downloading application related data corresponding to the application represented by the obtained active application identification information, which represents an application being executed or being suspended by the processing circuitry. Reply Br. 4 (citing Park Abstract, || 3, 5, 38, and Figs. 5—11). This argument ignores that the Examiner cites Seo for disclosing a download page. See Final Act. 3^4. Similarly, Appellants argue “Paragraph [0043] of Park does not disclose that the ‘application program for executing the method of providing information regarding an application according to an embodiment of the present embodiment’ is application related data for an application executed or being suspended by the processing circuitry.” Reply Br. 4. This argument ignores that paragraph 43 of Park is cited for accessing a market 5 Appeal 2017-005084 Application 13/800,278 server and the Abstract is cited for “obtain active application identification information representing an application being executed.” See Final Act. 3— 4. Accordingly, because Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings based on the combined teachings of Park and Seo (id.), we are unpersuaded or error. We also are unpersuaded of error based on Appellants’ arguments that “the rejection lacks a clear articulation of the reasons why Park and Seo would be combined to obtain the features recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 13— 14. Appellants do not provide sufficient persuasive argument or evidence to convince us that the Examiner’s reasoning—“to provide a smoother user experience by efficiently and quickly displaying to a user on a select screen additional information of the one or more applications available for download”—falls short of “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Kahn 441 F.3d at 988. In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 15 and 17 argued on the same basis. See App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 2-7. Claim 20 For similar reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 20. Final Act. 14—16. For instance, Appellants argue “Seo does not disclose that the new application is related to an application being executed or being suspended by the processing circuitry.” App. Br. 15. This argument is unpersuasive because the 6 Appeal 2017-005084 Application 13/800,278 rejection cites Park for “obtain application identification information representing the application being suspended by the processing system.” Final Act. 14 (citing Park Abstract). Appellants also argue unpersuasively that “even if Park and Seo are combined in the manner suggested by the final Office Action, the combination of features recited in claim 20 would not have resulted.” App. Br. 15. Appellants argue this in relation to the Examiner’s finding that Park’s “execution termination request signal” (Park 131) is claim 20’s “predetermined input.” Final Act. 14. Appellants argue “Seo discloses that the screen 10 shown in Fig. 5, which allegedly corresponds to the claimed page for downloading the application related data, is displayed in response to a download command input to a page provided from the application server (see paragraph [0059] of Seo),” but the rejection does not explain why “when the execution termination request signal of Park is received, a page for downloading the application related data for the application being suspended by the processing system would be automatically accessed as allegedly disclosed by Seo.” App. Br. 15. The Examiner finds that the combination of Seo and Park disclose displaying a page for downloading application related data of an application according to Seo upon receiving an interrupt command from a user as disclosed by Park because doing so would present users of a gaming application (for example item 1402 in Fig. 14) with options to update or download additional contents (such as unlocking characters and/or stages, purchasing content within an application, etc.) associated with the running application when a suspend command is generated in relation to 7 Appeal 2017-005084 Application 13/800,278 the application, thereby improving convenience of a user and potentially introducing new and improved features. Ans. 11. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reasoning. See, generally, Reply Br. 7—8. We, therefore, adopt the Examiners findings and conclusion that claim 20 is obvious over the combination of Park and Seo (Final Act. 14—16) and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 10—11) to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 14—16), which Appellants do not persuasively rebut (see, generally, Reply Br. 7—8). We sustain the rejection of claim 20. The Remaining Rejections Regarding Appellants’ arguments alleging error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—7, 13, 18, and 21, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion (Final Act. 5—14, 16) that these claims are unpatentable over Park and Seo, and the Examiner response (Ans. 11—15) to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 16—19), which Appellants do not persuasively rebut (see, generally, Reply Br. 8). We note, as do Appellants, that the Examiner’s Answer “does not provide a response to the arguments made with regard to claim 24.” Reply Br. 9. We agree with the Examiner, however, that the combination of Park and Seo render claim 24 obvious because claim 24 merely duplicates parts from claim 20, an obvious modification. See Final Act. 18. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—7, 13, 18, 21, and 24. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 8—12 and 14, which Appellants argue only on the basis that Tsuda, Otaka, and/ or Lee fail to overcome deficiencies, which we do not find. App. Br. 20. 8 Appeal 2017-005084 Application 13/800,278 We also adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claims 19, 22, and 23 are unpatentable over the combined teachings of Park, Seo, and Reville (Final Act. 20—22) and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 16—18) to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 20-22). We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments in reply (Reply Br. 9—10). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 22, and 23. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—15 and 17—24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9