Ex Parte Want et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2018

12347174 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/347,174 12/31/2008 57035 7590 11/30/2018 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC Attention: Tricia Riddle 430 Davis Drive Suite 150 Morrisville, NC 27560 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Roy Want 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. P28272/1020P28272 1631 EXAMINER STITT, ERIK V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2145 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2018 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 ROY WANT, KENTON LYONS, TREVOR PERING, SHIV ANIA. SUD, and BARBARA ROSARIO Appeal 2018-003 634 Application 12/347, 174 1 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 10-13, and 16-20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the Application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2018-003634 Application 12/347,174 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to context enhanced wireless discovery. See Spec. ,r 6. "One embodiment relates to a mobile computing device comprising a discovery module to receive status information for one or more target devices." Spec. ,r 6. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. An apparatus, comprising: a processor circuit; a discovery module for execution by the processor circuit to receive status information and service information for one or more target devices over a wireless connection, the status information comprising physical characteristics of the one or more target devices and the service information comprising services, data or information that are available from the one or more target devices; a composition manager for execution by the processor circuit to generate a graphical user interface including augmented graphical icons, graphs, or text, organized to represent the status information and the service information, the augmented graphical icons, graphs or text operative to dynamically change within the graphical user interface in response to changes in the physical characteristics of a target device of the one or more target devices detected by one or more sensors of the target device, the physical characteristics comprising one or more of a shaking movement of the target device, a direction in which the target device faces or a quantity of hands holding the target device; and a connection module for execution by the processor circuit to establish a wireless connection between a source device and one or more of the target devices, the connection established based on a selection signal received from the composition manager, the selection signal representative of one of the augmented graphical icons, graphs or text within the graphical user interface. 2 Appeal 2018-003634 Application 12/347,174 References and Rejections2 Claims 1--4, 10-12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Irie (US 5,847,658; Dec. 8, 1998), Holmes (US 2003/0025612 Al; Feb. 6, 2003), and Jones (US 2007/0264991 Al; Nov. 15, 2007). Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Irie, Holmes, Jones, and Corzillus (US 2003/0193562 Al; Oct. 16, 2003). Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Irie, Holmes, Jones, and Lohi (US 2008/0163057 Al; July 3, 2008). ANALYSIS Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 16-20 We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4---6) and (ii) the Answer (Ans. 3---6) to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. 3 Obviousness On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. 2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the (1) Final Rejection dated November 9, 2015 ("Final Act."); (2) Appeal Brief dated February 1, 2017 ("App. Br."); (3) Examiner's Answer dated December 20, 2017 ("Ans."); and (4) Reply Brief dated February 20, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 3 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.4I(b)(2). 3 Appeal 2018-003634 Application 12/347,174 I Appellants contend Irie, Holmes, and Jones do not collectively teach a connection module for execution by the processor circuit to establish a wireless connection between a source device and one or more of the target devices, the connection established based on a selection signal received from the composition manager, the selection signal representative of one of the augmented graphical icons, graphs or text within the graphical user interface, as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 19-23; Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants contend Irie teaches a vibration monitor and associated features, but not the above limitation. See App. Br. 20. Appellants argue neither Holmes nor Jones remedies the deficiency of Irie. See App. Br. 20-22. Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner explains Irie and Jones collectively teach the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 3---6. In particular, the Examiner cites Jones' Figure 4 and paragraphs 51 and 52, and explains why they teach the disputed limitation. See Ans. 3---6. The Examiner also explains why Jones teaches the claimed "selection signal." See Ans. 4. Appellants do not critique the Jones' portions cited by the Examiner, and do not persuasively explain why the Examiner's explanation is incorrect. Therefore, Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [ or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art."). 4 Appeal 2018-003634 Application 12/347,174 II Appellants contend Jones does not teach the claimed "status information." App. Br. 22. In particular, Appellants argue "[t]he status information recited in claim 1 comprises physical characteristics of the one or more devices which can be measured" and "[t]he available services taught in Jones are not physical characteristics of the devices." App. Br. 22. In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend: each independent claim in the current disclosure recites "the physical characteristics comprising one or more of a shaking movement of the target device, a direction in which the target devices faces, or a quantity of hands holding the target device". However, [in Jones,] being available or unavailable is not equivalent to one or more of a shaking movement of the target device, a direction in which the target devices faces, or a quantity of hands holding the target device. Reply Br. 3. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they are not directed to the Examiner's specific findings. The Examiner cites Irie-not Jones- for teaching the claimed "status information" and "the physical characteristics comprising one or more of a shaking movement of the target device, a direction in which the target device faces or a quantity of hands holding the target device." See Final Act. 4--6. Because Appellants do not dispute such findings based on Irie, Appellants fail to show Examiner error. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391. Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, and we thus sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants argue each of independent claims 10 and 1 7 recites the disputed limitations of claim 1, and is allowable for similar reasons. See 5 Appeal 2018-003634 Application 12/347,174 App. Br. 23. However, Appellants have not shown each of claims 10 and 17 recites the following disputed limitation of claim 1: a connection module for execution by the processor circuit to establish a wireless connection between a source device and one or more of the target devices, the connection established based on a selection signal received from the composition manager, the selection signal representative of one of the augmented graphical icons, graphs or text within the graphical user interface. In any event, as discussed above, Appellants' arguments about claim 1 are unpersuasive. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 10 and 1 7. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2-6, 11, 12, 16, and 18-20, as Appellants do not advance separate substantive arguments about those claims. Claim 13 The Examiner does not include any substantive rejection of claim 13 in the Final Rejection dated November 9, 2015 or the Non-Final Rejection dated April 1, 2015. Because the Examiner has not properly maintained the rejection of claim 13, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 10-12, and 16-20. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 13. 6 Appeal 2018-003634 Application 12/347,174 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7