Ex Parte Hatambeiki et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201612629423 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/629,423 12/02/2009 Arsham Hatambeiki 34018 7590 10/03/2016 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 WEST WACKER DRIVE SUITE 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732 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. 81230.135US2 7785 EXAMINER NGUYEN, LEV ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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): j arosikg@gtlaw.com chiipmail@gtlaw.com escobedot@gtlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ARSHAM HATAMBEIKI, CHRISTOPHER A. CHAMBERS, HAN-SHEN YUH, and STEVEN CLEGG Appeal2014-000981 Application 12/629,423 Technology Center 2100 Before MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-17, and 26-28, which constitute all of the claims currently pending in the application. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2014-000981 Application 12/629,423 EXEMPLARY CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for configuring a controlling device to command functional operations of an intended target appliance, compnsmg: creating on an user interface editing device a generic graphical user interface for the controlling device whereupon the created, generic graphical user interface is comprised of user interface elements that are associated with functional operations of a virtual equivalent of an appliance; transferring the created, generic graphical user interface to the controlling device from the user interface editing device; receiving into the controlling device data that functions to identify the intended target appliance; and causing the controlling device to use the received data that functions to identify the intended target appliance to establish within the controlling device a link between the transferred, created, generic graphical user interface and the intended target appliance whereupon activation of those user interface elements of the transferred, created, generic graphical user interface that were associated with functional operations of the virtual equivalent of an appliance will cause the controlling device to transmit commands to control corresponding functional operations of the intended target appliance. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination ofRezvani (US 7,734,724 B2; issued June 8, 2010) and Bush (US 6,397,186 Bl; issued May 28, 2002). Final Act. 3-7. 2 Appeal2014-000981 Application 12/629,423 Claims 10 and 12-17 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination ofRezvani, Bush, and various additional references. See Final Act. 7-10. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions, and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Rezvani and Bush teaches or suggests transferring the created, generic graphical user interface to the controlling device and causing the controlling device ... to establish within the controlling device a link between the transferred, created, generic graphical user interface and the intended target appliance, as recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner relies on Rezvani to teach the disputed limitations. Final Act. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds Rezvani teaches transferring the created, generic GUI to the controlling device and that the controlling device causes the virtual equivalent of an appliance to be linked to the intended target appliance. Final Act. 3. Appellants contend Rezvani does not transfer a generic graphic user interface that is thereafter caused to be linked to an appliance. App. Br. 4--5. Specifically, Appellants argue the controlling device does not establish a link between a generic graphical user interface and a specific intended target after the graphical user interface is transferred, but instead the link is already pre-established within the database server before the virtual representation can be requested/received by a controlling device. App. Br. 5; see also App. 3 Appeal2014-000981 Application 12/629,423 Br. 4 (describing Rezvani as disclosing a database with records that contain entries that link virtual representations to a specific device). Appellants further argue the transferred graphical user interface is linked to a specific device at the time that the graphical user interface is created and not after it is transferred to the controlling device. Reply Br. 4. Claim 1 requires: (i) transferring to the controlling device the created, generic graphical user interface, which is comprised of user interface elements associated with functional operations of a virtual equivalent of an appliance; and (ii) causing the controlling device to establish within the controlling device a link between the transferred generic graphical user interface and the intended target appliance. The sections of Rezvani cited by the Examiner describe devices that include a customizable user interface including virtual representations of the actual user interface of the device. Rezvani 9:25-33. A web page displaying a user interface that represents that device is generated by extracting the associated record for the device from the database server. Rezvani 10:37-50. Rezvani further describes that users may monitor and control the devices via a remote site using a suitable user interface, which may be constructed using one or more templates that lay out the look and position of the features of a device. Rezvani 15:8-22. We agree with Appellants that the user interface transferred to the controlling device in Rezvani (remote site used by user to monitor and control the device) is already linked to the specific device and is associated with functional operations of the specific device. Thus, we agree the cited sections of Rezvani do not describe transferring a generic user interface associated with functional operations of a virtual equivalent of an appliance 4 Appeal2014-000981 Application 12/629,423 and causing the controlling device to establish a link between the transferred generic graphical user interface and the intended target appliance. For the reasons stated above, Appellants persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on the additional prior art of record to cure the deficiency of Rezvani discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of independent claim 1 and the remaining claims, which depend from claim 1. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-17, and 26-28. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation