Ex Parte Fisher

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2018

13419752 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/419,752 03/14/2012
26158 7590 10/24/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gary W. Fisher
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.
E638301130US.l (0057.1) 7467
EXAMINER
SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2018 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):
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
BostonPatents@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte GARY W. FISHER
Appeal 2018-004628
Application 13/419,752
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, BETH Z. SHAW, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 23--42, which represent all the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
December 27, 2017 ("App. Br."), the Reply Brief filed March 28, 2018
("Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed February 7, 2018 ("Ans.") and
the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 2, 2017 ("Act.").
2 Appellant identifies Electrolux Home Appliances, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004628
Application 13/419,752
INVENTION
Appellant's invention is for communicating with kitchen and laundry
appliances. Spec. 1: 10-11.
Claim 23 is illustrative and reproduced below, with disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A kitchen or laundry appliance comprising:
a kitchen or laundry appliance housing containing at least
one operational component configured to perform at least one
cooking, cleaning or food preservation function of the kitchen
or laundry appliance;
a control system included in the kitchen or laundry
appliance housing and configured to control the at least one
operational component, the control system comprising a user
interface configured to receive user input to locally set or
change the at least one cooking, cleaning or food preservation
function, and locally display information indicating the at least
one cooking, cleaning or food preservation function or a current
state thereof; and
a communication apparatus operatively associated with
the control system and configured to communicate with a cloud
computing service over at least one network including a local
area network to enable a remote communication apparatus in
communication with the cloud computing service to remotely
set or change the at least one cooking, cleaning or food
preservation function, and remotely receive and display at least
some of the information indicating the at least one cooking,
cleaning or food preservation function or the current state
thereof.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 23, 25-28, 30-33, 35-38, and 40-42
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Mansbery et al.
(US 6,121,593, issued Sept. 19, 2000). Non-Final Act. 3-5.
2
Appeal 2018-004628
Application 13/419,752
The Examiner rejected claims 24, 29, 34, and 39 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Mansbery and Imamura et al.
(US 2002/0032491 Al, published Mar. 14, 2002). Non-Final Act. 5.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to the Appellant's
arguments. Appellant does not proffer sufficient argument or evidence for
us to find error in the Examiner's findings. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings and conclusions in the Non-Final Rejection (Act. 2-7)
and Answer (Ans. 2---6) for the following reasons.
Appellant acknowledges that Mansbery discloses software that allows
remote control and monitoring of appliances, but argues Mansbery does not
explicitly or inherently disclose communication with a cloud computing
service to enable remote control and monitoring. App. Br. 6. Appellant
argues Mansbery does not disclose that its home server is a communication
apparatus configured to communicate with a "cloud computing service," or
that its home server is a cloud computing service. App. Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner explains that the term "cloud computing
service" is not defined in the Specification. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds
Mansbery' s Figure 2 item 100 is "considered equivalent to a personal cloud
system." Id. The Examiner finds Mansbery states that an appliance may be
controlled while away from the home "from their favorite worldwide web
browser." Id. (citing Mansbery 3:64---67). The technology used to
communicate "can be directly manipulated from any computer around the
3
Appeal 2018-004628
Application 13/419,752
world." Id. ( citing Mansbery 4:30-31 ). Therefore, the Examiner maps
Mansbery's Figure 2 item 100 to the claimed "cloud computing service." Id.
The Examiner cites additional references as evidence in support of the
interpretation of cloud as including the use of a personal cloud. Ans. 3.
Appellant takes issue with these citations because Appellant contends the
Examiner should only use the additional references to aid in the
interpretation of "server software" as mentioned in Mansbery and not to
explain the meaning of the term "cloud." Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues
there is "no ambiguity" in the term "server software" and that "one skilled in
the art would not understand the meaning of the term to encompass a
personal cloud system or any cloud computing service." Id.
Upon review of the record, we are not persuaded by Appellant's
arguments regarding Mansbery or the meaning of "cloud computing
service," which are unsupported by any evidence in the record. We agree
with the Examiner that Mansbery discloses the claimed "communication
apparatus operatively associated with the control system and configured to
communicate with a cloud computing service over at least one network
including a local area network," as recited in claim 23 at least because
Mansbery discloses an appliance may be controlled while away from the
home "from their favorite worldwide web browser." Mansbery 3:64---67.
Appellant provides insufficient evidence proving that the Specification or
claims limit "cloud computing service" in a way that, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Mansbery's teachings. In
particular, Appellant provides insufficient explanation for why a "cloud
computing service" should be construed as something other than the remote
appliance system of Mansbery. App. Br. 5, 6; Reply Br. 3.
4
Appeal 2018-004628
Application 13/419,752
The claim recites "to communicate with a cloud computing service
over at least one network including a local area network." Thus, the network
over which the cloud computing service communicates is recited as
including a remote network or a local area network. The only two mentions
of "cloud computing services" appear in the second to last paragraph of the
Specification, as follows:
In accordance with one aspect of the first embodiment
and/or in accordance with another embodiment of this
disclosure, cloud computing services may be incorporated into
the remote communication system of this disclosure. For
example, one or more of the operabilities provided by the
remote computer 34 and/or the overarching network 28 may be
provided by way of cloud computing services.
Spec. 14:3-8 (emphasis added). The only figure in the Specification
provides no further clarification.
Mansbery explains that an appliance may be controlled while away
from the home "from their favorite worldwide web browser." Id. ( citing
Mansbery 3:64---67). Mansbery also teaches the technology used to
communicate with the home appliances "can be directly manipulated from
any computer around the world." Mansbery 4: 30-31. Anticipation "is not
an 'ipsissimis verbis' test." In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) ( citing Akzo N. V. v. United States Int 'l Trade Comm 'n, 808 F .2d
1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). "An anticipatory reference, ... need
not duplicate word for word what is in the claims." Standard Havens Prods.
v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Examiner
sufficiently maps Mansbery's disclosure to the claims. Ans. 3. In the
absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to the contrary,
5
Appeal 2018-004628
Application 13/419,752
the Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments is reasonable and we find
no reversible error.
Therefore, for these reasons, and for the additional reasons stated in
the Non-Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection of claim 23. We sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims
25-28, 30-33, 35-38, and 40-42, which are not separately argued with
particularity. We also sustain the rejections of claims 24, 29, 34, and 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Mansbery and Imamura,
because Appellant presents no new or additional arguments for those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 23--42.
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
6