Ex Parte Michelson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 20, 2016

13055757 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2016)

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