Ex Parte Jopling

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

14696782 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/696,782 04/27/2015
27530 7590 12/25/2018
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
IP Department
One Wells Fargo Center
301 South College Street, 23rd Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenton Sterling Jopling
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.
48379/09068 4674
EXAMINER
WENG, PEI YONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
ip@nelsonmullins.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENTON STERLING JOPLING
Appeal2018-005653
Application 14/696,782
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-17 and 21-23, constituting all
claims currently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2018-005653
Application 14/696,782
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to a marine electronics device with
smart device mirroring. See Spec. ,r 14. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored
thereon a plurality of computer-executable instructions which,
when executed by a computer, cause the computer to:
establish a connection between a marine electronics device
connected to a vessel and a remotely-located smart device,
wherein the marine electronics device is configured to monitor
and control marine features corresponding to the vessel, wherein
the marine electronics device is configured to display marine
data including at least one of chart data, radar data, sonar data,
steering data, dashboard data, navigation data, or fishing data;
initialize a graphical user interface (GUI) mirroring
application on the smart device;
receive a GUI from the smart device;
display the GUI on a screen of the marine electronics
device; and
transmit one or more commands or selections received on
the marine electronics device to the smart device.
(App. Br., Claims Appendix, 9.)
REJECTION
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chang et al., (US 2010/0262673 Al; published Oct. 14,
2010) ("Chang") and Butterworth (US 2014/0013276 Al; published Jan. 9,
2014). Final Act. 2; Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2018-005653
Application 14/696,782
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chang
and Butterworth teaches or suggests "a marine electronics device connected
to a vessel ... wherein the marine electronics device is configured to
monitor and control marine features corresponding to the vessel, wherein the
marine electronics device is configured to display marine data" and "display
the GUI [ from a smart device] on a screen of the marine electronics
device[s]," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 9 and 16?
The Examiner finds Chang teaches displaying a GUI from a smart
device on the screen of an electronics device. Ans. 4 ( citing Chang Figs. 1-
3, ,r 150). The Examiner further finds Butterworth teaches a marine
electronics device that monitors and controls marine features, including
displaying marine data. Ans. 5 (citing Butterworth Figs. 7, 8, ,r,r 5, 38).
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to combine Chang
and Butterworth because they are both directed to computer GUI display
methods and it would have been obvious to modify Chang's computer GUI
display with Butterworth's computer display of marine information. Ans. 5;
see Ans. 14. Specifically, the Examiner finds Butterworth teaches "that a
marine electric device can be a computer that displays marine electronics."
Ans. 14.
Appellant contends there is "no articulated reasoning for a motivation
to adapt [Butterworth's] marine related display installed on a marine vessel
with the GUI display function on the generic computer of Chang." App. Br.
5---6 (underlining omitted; emphasis added.) Specifically, Appellant argues
there is "no indication or other motivation to extend the functionality of
3
Appeal2018-005653
Application 14/696,782
Butterworth' s marine electronic device to include a smart device mirroring
application that is remotely connected to the marine electronic device."
App. Br. 6. According to Appellant, "just because two references can be
combined, that is not a motivation to combine the references." Reply Br. 2.
Appellant further argues one would not be motivated "to modify the system
of Chang to be connected to a vessel and configured to monitor and control
marine functions corresponding to the vessel" because the "marine
environment is problematic for the generic desktop of Chang ... due to the
extreme weather conditions that the marine electronic device endures (being
outside in the constant sun all day - something that generic desktops ( such
as in Chang) are not configured to handle)." App. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's arguments.
As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Chang describes "the first terminal 100
transmits screen information displayed on the display unit 151 to the second
terminal 200 so that the screen information of the first terminal 100 is
reproduced on at least a portion of a screen of the second terminal 200"
(Chang ,r 146) and "the second terminal 200 displays a manipulation unit for
enabling a user to manipulate all functions of the first terminal 100 together
with the screen information" (Chang ,r 150). In other words, Chang teaches
connecting a first device and a second device (i.e., the claimed smart device
and electronics device, respectively), mirroring the display from the first
device to the second device and reproducing the display on the second
device (i.e., the claimed initializing GUI mirror application on the smart
device and then the electronics device receiving and displaying the mirrored
GUI from the smart device), and manipulating functions of the first device
using the second device (i.e., the claimed electronics device receiving
4
Appeal2018-005653
Application 14/696,782
commands or selections on the electronics device and transmitting to the
smart device).
As further cited by the Examiner (Ans. 13), Chang describes "a
mobile terminal described in this disclosure can include such a video and
audio outputtable terminal[] as ... a navigation system." Chang ,r 69.
Butterworth shows a marine electronics data menu including chart, sonar,
radar, and steer information. See Ans. 5 ( citing Butterworth Figs. 7, 8).
Butterworth also describes the "computing system 100 may be ... part of a
navigation system." Butterworth ,r 41; see Ans. 13. In other words, in
addition to teaching the claimed steps for mirroring a smart device GUI on
an electronics device, Chang teaches providing this GUI mirroring in a
navigation system, such as Butterworth's navigation system in a marine
environment (i.e., including chart, sonar, radar, and steer information).
We agree with the Examiner's findings that "even without
Butterworth, it would have been obvious to implement [Chang's] system on
any type of computers including computers that are installed on boats," and
that Butterworth makes it "even clearer that the features disclosed in Chang
can be implemented on a marine computer" Ans. 14 (bolding omitted.)
Contrary to Appellant's argument, the Examiner's finding is not limited to
merely combining computers with additional functions. Specifically,
Appellant has not addressed the Examiner's finding that Chang teaches the
claimed GUI mirroring in a computer system, in a navigation system, such
as the navigation system specifically used in a marine environment of
Butterworth.
For at least the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 16. For the same reasons, we
5
Appeal2018-005653
Application 14/696,782
sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and
17, not argued separately. See App. Br. 8.
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chang
and Butterworth teaches or suggests "display the GUI on a first portion of
the screen of the marine electronics device; and simultaneously display the
marine data on a second portion of the screen of the marine electronics
device," as recited in dependent claim 21 and commensurately recited in
dependent claims 22 and 23?
The Examiner relies on Butterworth to teach portions displaying GUI
and portions displaying marine data together. Ans. 15 ( citing Butterworth
Figs. 7, 8, ,r 67); see Ans. 12.
Appellant contends Butterworth discloses a "generic system menu"
and fails "to teach or suggest displaying both a GUI mirroring application
and marine data in two different sections of the screen at the same time."
App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant argues Butterworth teaches side menu
screens displayed with example data types, but the "side menu screens are
not the equivalent of a GUI mirroring application," and instead there is "no
simultaneous display of both a GUI mirroring application and marine data
in Butterworth." Reply Br. 3.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. As Appellant points out,
Butterworth does not teach a GUI mirroring application or simultaneous
display of a GUI mirroring application and marine data. See Reply Br. 3;
App. Br. 7. Paragraph 67 of Butterworth describes "one or more displayed
tray options which may be used to display, enhance, alter, and/or edit marine
electronics data, such as the one or more displayed tray options 712 of tray
6
Appeal2018-005653
Application 14/696,782
menu 704 and the one or more displayed tray options 713 of tray menu 706"
and "[t]he displayed tray options may include options to display different
types of marine electronics data simultaneously, options to alter settings of
the touch screen 105, or any other option to display, enhance, alter, and/or
edit marine electronics data." In other words, Butterworth teaches menu
screens with tray options that are displayed simultaneously, but the tray
options are not mirrored from another device.
We find the Examiner has not provided sufficient findings that
Butterworth's simultaneously displaying tray options, that are not mirrored
from another device, teaches the claimed simultaneously displaying marine
data and the GUI that is mirrored from the smart device using a GUI
mirroring application.
Accordingly, we are constrained, based on the record, to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 21 and commensurate claims 22 and 23.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-17 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 21-23 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
7