Ex Parte YANG et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 17, 2019

14494987 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/494,987 09/24/2014 68103 7590 01/22/2019 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Pil-seung YANG 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. 0502-0102 2678 EXAMINER SPRATT,BEAUD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2143 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/22/2019 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): usdocketing@jeffersonip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PIL-SEUNG YANG, CHAN-HONG MIN, YOUNG-AH SEONG, and SAY JANG Appeal2018-005763 Application 14/494,987 1 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and DAVID J. CUTITT A II Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--10, 13-17, 19-25, and 28- 3 6, all of the claims pending in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Appellant") is the applicant, as provided for under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.46, and is also identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 3, 11, 12, 18, 26, and 27 are cancelled. See Appeal Br., Claims Appx. Appeal 2018-005763 Application 14/494,987 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Invention Appellant's invention relates to sharing content, such as handwritten information., between devices using transparent layers. See Spec. ,r,r 2, 8. 3 Exemplary Claim Claims 1, 10, 16, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below with limitation at issue italicized. 1. A content sharing method performed by a display device connected to at least one user terminal, the content sharing method comprising: displaying content on the display device; receiving information included in a transparent layer of a first user terminal among the at least one user terminal from the first user terminal; and overlapping the transparent layer of the first user terminal, including the information received from the first user terminal, on the displayed content, wherein the at least one user terminal outputs the content to share a screen displayed on the display device, and wherein the information included in the transparent layer of the first user terminal includes a property of the transparent layer indicating the transparent layer is shareable. Appeal Br. 10. 3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the following documents: (1) Appellant's Specification, filed September 24, 2014 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed November 2, 2017; (3) the Appeal Brief filed February 27, 2018 ("Appeal Br."); (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed March 22, 2018; and (5) the Reply Brief filed May 15, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal 2018-005763 Application 14/494,987 REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13-17, 19, 20, 24, 25, and 28-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination ofViswanathan (US 2012/0254773 Al; pub. Oct. 4, 2012) and Branton et al. (US 2014/0281875 Al; pub. Sep. 18, 2014) ("Branton"). Final Act. 2-15. Claims 6-8 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Viswanathan, Branton, and Samsung, Samsung School - smart education solution, https://www.myldi.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/Samsung-School.pdf (2013) (last visited January 10, 2018) ("Samsung"). Final Act. 15-17. Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017). CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS Rejection of Claim 1 Under Â§ 103 Issue: Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Viswanathan and Branton teaches or suggests "wherein the information included in the transparent layer of the first user terminal includes a property of the transparent layer indicating the transparent layer is shareable," as recited in claim 1? The Examiner finds Branton teaches the limitation at issue. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 19-21 (citing Branton ,r,r 2--4, 37, 52, 92, 93, 112). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Branton's discussion of collaborative annotation of documents in which "' [ u ]sers can control which layers are shown and hidden'; transparent layer." Final Act. 4 (citing Branton ,r 105). 3 Appeal 2018-005763 Application 14/494,987 Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings, arguing Branton doesn't teach a property included in the transparent layer. Specifically, Appellant argues "Branton provides no disclosure that any information is included in a transparent layer, aside from perhaps the user label and the sequence identifier. But Branton makes no disclosure that the user label and sequence identifier are properties that indicate the transparent layer is shareable." Appeal Br. 6; see Reply Br. 2. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Appellant amended claim 1 to include the limitation at issue in an Amendment filed January 26, 2017 ("Amendment"). See Amendment 2. Appellant relies on paragraph 33 of Appellant's Specification (the "Specification") to support the newly added limitation. See Amendment 10; see also Appeal Br. 2, 5. Paragraph 33 of the Specification discloses that: The control unit may determine a property of the transparent layer and controls the communication unit to transmit the first handwritten information included in the transparent layer of the first user terminal to the display device according to the property of the transparent layer of the first user terminal, wherein the property of the transparent layer of the first user terminal indicates if the transparent layer of the first user terminal is shareable. Spec. ,r 33. The Examiner finds that "[ t ]his description does not specify how the layer, information and property are stored or what they themselves are included in." Ans. 20-21. We agree, noting the Specification simply indicates that a "property of the transparent layer of the first user terminal indicates if the transparent layer of the first user terminal is shareable." Spec. ,r 33. Paragraph 33 of the Specification does not disclose that the 4 Appeal 2018-005763 Application 14/494,987 property is stored in or included in the transparent layer. 4 Id. Thus, in view of the Specification, the Examiner concludes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation at issue includes receiving information that includes a property of the transparent layer indicating the transparent layer is shareable. See Ans. 20-21. Appellant, in tum, fails to provide arguments that establish the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonably broad when read in light of the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See Reply Br. 2--4. Branton, likewise, teaches that a user can control "[ v ]isibility of each of a plurality of layers ... based on a layer attribute that includes at least one of: ... access controls. Branton ,r 4 (italics added). In view of the Examiner's interpretation of the limitation at issue in claim 1, we agree with the Examiner's finding Branton's layer attribute that allows a user to control layer visibility of each of a plurality of layers using access controls teaches or at least suggests information that "includes a property of the transparent layer indicating the transparent layer is shareable," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 21 ("Branton discloses attributes and options that control sharing ( visibility: shown/hidden to others)"). 4 Appellant fails to demonstrate that paragraph 33 provides support for Appellant's amendment to claim 1 reciting the limitation at issue and more particularly reciting that "a property of the transparent layer indicating the transparent layer is shareable" is included in the transparent layer. See Amendment 2. Paragraph 33 does not disclose the property is included in information in the transparent layer, as recited in Appellant's amendment to claim 1. Accordingly, in the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 5 Appeal 2018-005763 Application 14/494,987 Appellant next argues "Branton provides no explanation for how a user indicates that a transparent layer is shareable when the user determines whether layers they create can be viewed by others" because "there are many ways for a user to determine whether a layer can be viewed by others aside from including information in a transparent layer that indicates the transparent layer is shareable." Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2. We find this argument unpersuasive because we agree with the Examiner's finding that Branton's user interface for controlling visibility of individual layers teaches allowing the user to indicate that the layer is sharable by allowing the user to make the layer visible to others. See Ans. 21. For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejection of independent claim 1, and of independent claims 10, 16, and 25, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 6. Dependent claims 2, 4--9, 13-15, 17, 19-24, 28-36, and 36 are also not argued separately and so the rejections of these claims are sustained for the same reasons given for independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9. 6 Appeal 2018-005763 Application 14/494,987 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--10, 13-17, 19-25, and 28-36. 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). AFFIRMED 7