Ex Parte Perry

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2016

13406542 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/406,542 02/28/2012 RON PERRY
87048 7590 07/27/2016
Jordan IP Law (IBM - SVL)
12501 Prosperity Dr., Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
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.
RSW920125201 9328
EXAMINER
WEBER,JOYM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2016 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):
admin@jordaniplaw.com
info@jordaniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RON PERRY
Appeal2015-00388
Application 13/406,542
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 16 through 35, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for setting the user interface to
best suit the display screen of an electronic device, for instance, a cellular
phone or a tablet. See Abstract.
Appeal 2015-00388
Application 13/406,542
Claim 16 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reproduced below:
16. A method for setting a user interface to suit a
display screen of an electronic device operable under at least
one of a plurality of user-interface variants, the method
compnsmg:
maintaining a repository which maps a list of the plurality of
user-interface variants for the electronic device;
receiving, from the electronic device, a query identifying the
electronic device and requesting a selection of a user-interface
variant from the repository;
responding to the query by providing a selected user-
interface variant best suited for the electronic device; and
utilizing the response to set the selected user-interface
variant for use in the electronic device.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 16, 22 through 25, and 29 through 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bradley et al. (US 2008/0140835
Al; June 12, 2008) ("Bradley"). Final Act. 2-9. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 17 through 21, 26 through 28, and 32
through 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bradley and
Reisman (US 2009/0319672; Dec. 24, 2009). Final Act. 9-18.
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated July 9, 2014,
the Final Office Action mailed December 11, 2013 ("Final Act."), and the
Examiner's Answer mailed on July 30, 2014.
2
Appeal 2015-00388
Application 13/406,542
Anticipation Rejection
ANALYSIS
Appellant's argument directed to the anticipation rejection asserts the
independent claims recite selecting the user interface variant for the
electronic device, which is not taught by Bradley. App. Br. 10. Specifically,
Appellant argues that Bradley "lacks any recognition of the problem present
to Appellant." App. Br. 10; see id. at 11-12. The Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments on pages 2 and 3 of the
Answer. In this response, the Examiner finds that Bradley discloses when a
client device requests access to another device, a determination is made of
the interface to be used. Answer 3. We have reviewed the evidence cited by
the Examiner and concur with the Examiner's finding. Further, we note the
Examiner's findings is further supported by the example discussed in
Bradley's paragraphs 444 through 447, which describe an example of the
system operation where one device makes use of a Java application and the
other a Windows application to access the same document (i.e. in reviewing
the same document the responses to the devices is set to the user interface
for the specific device). Thus, Appellant's arguments directed to the
anticipation rejection have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
rejection and we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 16, 22 through
25, and 29 through 31.
Obviousness Rejections
Appellant's arguments directed to claims 17 through 21, 26 through
28, and 32 through 35 assert that the obviousness rejection is in error for the
same reasons as discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1, and that
3
Appeal 2015-00388
Application 13/406,542
the additional teachings of Reisman do not make up for the deficiency in the
anticipation rejection. App. Br. 14-16. Further, Appellant argues that the
combination of Bradley and Reisman "lack any recognition of the problem
solved by features set forth by the claimed invention." App. Br. 15; see id.
at 16. As discussed above, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the anticipation rejection. Further, in response to Appellant's
arguments, the Examiner finds that both references are related to the claims
as they are in the field of providing optimized graphical user interfaces for a
plurality of devices. Answer 4. We concur with the Examiner and we are
not persuaded of error in the obviousness rejection. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 17 through 21, 26 through 28, 32 through
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 16 through 35.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4