Ex Parte Zontrop et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2016

12504015 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/504,015 07/16/2009
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
04/22/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pascal Zontrop
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.
LUTZ 201044US01 9289
EXAMINER
HEGARTY, KELLY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PASCAL ZONTROP, SIGURD VAN BROECK, LIEVEN
TRAPPENIERS, ZHE LOU, MARC BRUNO FRIEDA GODON, JOHAN
GEORGES PROSPER CRIEL, and LAURENCE ANNIE HUGO MARIE
CLAEYS
Appeal2014-004982
Application 12/504,015
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-13 and 16-22. 1 Claims 14 and 15 are cancelled. We
have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-004982
Application 12/504,015
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to exchanging
information, between user devices, triggered by a predetermined gesture.
(Abstract.) Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
9. A method for exchanging information between a first
user device and a second user device, comprising:
configuring a first user device such that movement of
said first user device according to a predetermined gesture is
associated with a predetermined information exchange from
said first user device towards a second user device;
making said gesture, hereby performing said information
exchange from said first user device to said second user device;
storing said predetermined information in a buff er
storage device configured to temporarily store said
predetermined information; and
performing said information exchange from said buffer
storage device to said second user device, when triggered by
said gesture, to interact with a gaming application running on
the second user device or to remotely control the second user
device based at least in part on the predetermined gesture.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 12, 13, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Harrison (US 2008/0152263 Al, pub.
June 26, 2008). (Final Act. 2-7.)
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harrison and Hussmann (US
2005/0235029 Al, pub. Oct. 20, 2005). (Final Act. 7-13.)
2
Appeal2014-004982
Application 12/504,015
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Harrison and Sufuentes (US 2006/0166740 Al, pub.
July 27, 2006). (Final Act. 13-14.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues: 2
Issue One: Whether Harrison discloses the independent claim 9
limitations:
storing said predetermined information in a buff er
storage device configured to temporarily store said
predetermined information; and
performing said information exchange from said buffer
storage device to said second user device, when triggered by
said gesture, to interact with a gaming application running on
the second user device or to remotely control the second user
device based at least in part on the predetermined gesture.
(App. Br. 7-9.)
Issue Two: Whether Harrison discloses the independent claim 12
limitation:
wherein the buffer storage device is configured to temporarily
store predetermined information to be forwarded from the user
device to a further user device upon receipt of a trigger
resulting from identification of movement of the user device
according to a predetermined gesture to interact with a gaming
application running on the further user device or to remotely
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 8, 2013), Reply Brief
(filed Mar. 21, 2014), Final Office Action (mailed May 13, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 27, 2014) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2014-004982
Application 12/504,015
control the further user device based at least in part on the
predetermined gesture.
(App. Br. 9-10.)
Issue Three: Whether Harrison discloses the independent claim 22
limitations:
temporarily storing predetermined information in a buffer
storage device associated with a user device, wherein the
predetermined information is to be forwarded from the user
device to a further user device upon receipt of a trigger
resulting from identification of movement of the user device
according to a predetermined gesture to interact with a gaming
application running on the further user device or to remotely
control the further user device in response to the predetermined
gesture;
managing content of the buff er storage device and
controlling communication/ exchange of the predetermined
information with the further user device at a basic buffer logic
processor;
receiving information at a program buffer logic processor
from a device logic processor associated with the user device in
conjunction with the running of an information exchange
application on the device logic processor; and
sending the information received by the program buffer
logic processor from the device logic processor toward the
buffer storage device.
(App. Br. 10-12.)
Issue Four: Whether the combination of Harrison and Hussmann
teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations:
a buffer storage device configured to temporarily store
predetermined information which is to be exchanged with the
further user device when triggered by said trigger processor to
interact with a gaming application running on the further user
4
Appeal2014-004982
Application 12/504,015
device or to remotely control the further user device based at
least in part on the predetermined gesture.
(App. Br. 13-14.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments
and we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-14);
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-10). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
For all of the above-quoted limitations at issue in the independent
claims, the Examiner relies, for both the anticipation and obviousness
rejections, on the disclosure in Harrison of, according to Appellants'
characterization, a device which:
transfers a file from memory of the hand-held electronic device
to memory of a remote device or vice versa in response to
recognition of the gesture. The Harrison hand-held electronic
device can be used as a game device, phone, portable media
player, e-mail device, web browser device, or navigation
device. The Harrison remote device can be any suitable
electronic device, such as a personal computer, laptop, game
console, television, or digital picture frame.
(App. Br. 8; see Harrison Figs. lA---C, i-fi-12, 17, 19, 20, 23, 28, claim 5.)
Notwithstanding this description, Appellants argue, with respect to the
"storing" and "storage" elements of the independent claims, Harrison does
not disclose storing predetermined information in a buffer storage device
configured to temporarily store the information. (App. Br. 7-11, 13.) We
5
Appeal2014-004982
Application 12/504,015
agree with the Examiner, however, that the memory disclosed in Harrison
satisfies the buff er storage requirement of the claims, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of that term. (Final Act. 3; Harrison Fig. IA,
element 104, i-fi-f 19, 20, 23.) As the Examiner correctly finds, the memory of
Harrison "functions, at the level defined by the claims, exactly like the
'buffer storage device' described by [the claims]." (Ans. 4.)3
Appellants also argue, with respect to the "storing" and "storage"
limitations of the claims, as well as the "performing" step of claim 9,
Harrison does not disclose storing information, or performing the exchange
of information, to interact with a gaming application running on the
transferee device, or remotely control that device. (App. Br. 8-11, 13.) This
conclusory argument is not persuasive - as Appellants admit, and as
Harrison specifically claims, the device disclosed in Harrison can be used as
a "game device." (App. Br. 8; Harrison Claim 5.) We agree with the
Examiner's finding:
Harrison does teach that the information from the buffer storage
device can be used to interact with a gaming application since a
game console by nature is a gaming application, and [paragraph
19] teaches transferring files to a game console; and claim 5
also teaches that the first user device can be a game device,
which by its nature is used "to interact with a gaming
application", and claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, asserts
3 In the Reply Brief, Appellants refer to "new allegations in the Answer
regarding the 'storing' element." (Reply Br. 2.) We are not persuaded that
the Examiner introduced new grounds for rejection into the Answer, and
further note Examiners, as well as the Board, make findings of fact, reach
conclusions of law, and make decisions regarding the exercise of discretion,
but do not make "arguments " "contentions " "admissions " or
' ' '
"concessions," because neither the Examiner nor the Board are parties in any
ex parte proceeding.
6
Appeal2014-004982
Application 12/504,015
the first user device (or game device) to recognize and interact
with a second user device ("remote device" in claim 1 ) .
. . . Harrison figs. lB and 1 C teaches remotely control the
second user device based at least in part on the
predetermined gesture, since the hand of the user is shown
gesturing in front of second user device 130 and the second user
device is shown being remotely controlled to display a race-car
picture on it.
(Ans. 6-7.)
Appellants further argue Harrison does not disclose the managing,
receiving, and sending limitations of claim 22. (App. Br. 11-12.) Again,
these arguments are presented in a conclusory fashion and which we do not
find to be persuasive. We agree with the Examiner's findings that Harrison
discloses functions of memory, a processor, and associated program
instructions satisfying these claim limitations. (Ans. 8-10.)
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the anticipation rejections
of claims 9, 12, and 22 in light of Harrison, and the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 over Harrison and Hussmann.
We also sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 13, and 19-21 in
light of Harrison, and the obviousness rejections of claims 2-8 and 16-18
over Harrison and Hussmann, and of claims 10 and 11 over Harrison and
Sufuentes, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13 and 16-22.
7
Appeal2014-004982
Application 12/504,015
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8