Ex Parte MichelsonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 20, 201613055757 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/055,757 01125/2011 22879 7590 01/22/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bruce David Michelson 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. 82621175 7945 EXAMINER IPAKCHI,MARYAMM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2171 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01122/2016 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRUCE DAVID MICHELSON Appeal2014-000390 Application 13/055,757 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-15. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 In this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June 26, 2013), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed September 23, 2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 23, 2013), the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed February 27, 2013), and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed January 25, 2011). Appeal2014-000390 Application 13/055,757 THE INVENTION Appellant's invention relates to systems and methods for providing information regarding resource consumption or environmental impact associated with usage of a computer. Spec., Title. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method for providing a computing device user with information regarding operation of the computing device, the method comprising: monitoring on the computing device resource consumption; storing resource consumption data obtained from the monitoring; receiving a request from the user for information regarding resource consumption or environmental impact associated with the user's operation of the computing device; and presenting to the user information regarding resource consumption or environmental impact. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hasper (US 6,782,343 B2; Aug. 24, 2004). Final Act. 5-7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hasper. Final Act. 7-8. Claims 3, 5-7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hasper and Miyamoto (US 2004/0044476 Al; Mar. 4, 2004). Final Act. 8-13. 2 Appeal2014-000390 Application 13/055,757 Claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hasper, Miyamoto, and McConnell (US 7 ,440,871 B2; Oct. 21, 2008). Final Act. 14--16. ANALYSIS Only those arguments actually made by Appellant in the Briefs are considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 4--14; Reply Br. 1--4. We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons as set forth in the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-16) and the Examiner's findings and reasons set forth in the Answer (Ans. 3-8). We highlight specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 Regarding independent claim 1, Appellant's arguments present the issue: Has the Examiner erred by finding Hasper teaches receiving a request for information "regarding resource consumption or environmental impact associated with the user's operation of the computing device," as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claims 2, 10, and 11? Appellant argues, "Hasper teaches a process tool controller that collects information regarding process materials consumed by distinct and separate process tools." App. Br. 7. By contrast, Appellant contends the "present specification and claims are clearly and explicitly directed to a method that enables a computing device to monitor the resources consumed by the operation of the computing device itself." App. Br. 8. 3 Appeal2014-000390 Application 13/055,757 The Examiner finds a broad but reasonable interpretation of "computing device," encompasses a single computer as well as a network or system of connected devices. Ans. 4. Further, the Examiner finds such an interpretation of "computing device" is consistent with Appellant's Specification. Id. Thus, the Examiner finds the information "regarding resource consumption or environmental impact associated with the user's operation of the computing device" reads on the resource consumption or environmental impact associated with use of Rasper's "network/system of connected devices (e.g., process tool associated with a plurality of sub- controllers ). " Id. We agree with the Examiner. Appellant responds contending the Specification describes the computing devices as laptop, notebook, or desktop computer and, thus, the Examiner's interpretation is improper as inconsistent with the Specification. Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec. Figs. 1, 2, 3:15-16, 4:5---6). We remain unpersuaded of Examiner error. "Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe [the] invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellant's discussion of exemplary computing devices does not constitute such a clear and precise definition of "computing device." In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding Hasper teaches receiving a request for information "regarding resource consumption or environmental impact associated with the user's operation of the computing device," as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claims 2, 10, and 11 argued together with claim 1 (App. Br. 10). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 as anticipated by Hasper. 4 Appeal2014-000390 Application 13/055,757 Obviousness of Claims 3-9, and 12-15 Regarding claims 3, 5-7, 12, and 13, Appellant argues Miyamoto fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Hasper. App. Br. 13. For the same reasons as claim 1 discussed supra, we are not persuaded of such deficiencies in the Examiner's reading of Hasper. Regarding claims 8, 9, 14, and 15, Appellant argues Miyamoto and McConnell fail to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Hasper (App. Br. 14) and for the same reasons as discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Regarding claim 4, the Examiner finds it would be obvious to use a key on a keyboard of any color - including a "green-colored key" as claimed. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 6. Appellant argues, "Hasper fails to disclose or suggest, a keyboard having a physical green key." App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 3--4. We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument and we agree with the Examiner that it would be obvious to interchange the green colored tree button of Hasper with a key of a well-known keyboard of any desired color - including a "green-colored key" as claimed. Ans. 6 (citing Hasper Fig. 1, 3:35-39, 3:50-55). Thus, we sustain the rejections of claims 3-9, and 12-15. 5 Appeal2014-000390 Application 13/055,757 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 is affirmed. 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 kme 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation