Ex Parte Fujioka

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

13852840 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/852,840 03/28/2013
131888 7590
Mattel, Inc. - Patent Group
333 Continental Blvd.
El Segundo, CA 90245
03/29/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robb Fujioka
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.
32119(1) 1074
EXAMINER
HUANG,JAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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):
epatents@mattel.com
patricia. deleon @matte 1. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBB FUJIOKA
Appeal2014-002443
Application 13/852,840 1
Technology Center 3600
Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Mattel, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-002443
Application 13/852,840
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claims relate "to the field of computers and, more
particularly, to user environments and access controls for operating systems
and applications." (Spec. ,r 34).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
A tablet computer, comprising:
a touch screen display, one or more processors, a storage media, a
wireless data communication interface, an operating system comprising an
application framework layer and an application layer, and an overlay system
and an access control stored in the storage media and configured to be
executed by the one or more processors, the overlay system comprising:
instructions for controlling access to one or more application
programs in the application layer;
instructions for providing a first user interface that receives input
through the touch screen display;
instructions for providing a second operating environment associated
with a second user interface that receives input through the touch screen
display;
instructions for requiring input of an authentication code through the
touch screen display to access the first user interface from the second
operating environment; and
instructions for accepting, in the first user interface, a configuration of
the access control configured to perm it or deny a request for access in the
second operating environment to one or more of a system setting, an
application program, an audio file by a media player app, a video file by the
2
Appeal2014-002443
Application 13/852,840
media player app, a hardware resource, an internet resource, a text file, an
image file, and an electronic book.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Holloway Jr.
Barton
US 2005/0198354 Al
US 2007/0212025 Al
US 2011/0281639 Al
US 2013/0017806 Al
Sept. 8, 2005
Sept. 13, 2007
Nov. 17, 2011
Jan. 17,2013
Porat
Sprigg
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Sprigg, Barton, and Holloway.
Claims 4, 5, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Sprigg, Barton, Holloway, and Porat
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Sprigg discloses:
A single online interface hosted on the parental
control settings server provides parents with a
centralized system for managing each individual
child's access permissions. This single interface
allows parents to control all their children's mobile
phones and mobile computing devices quickly and
efficiently, without requiring any physical access
to the children's devices.
3
Appeal2014-002443
Application 13/852,840
2. Sprigg further discloses:
The connection between the parental control
settings server 18 and the telephone network 11
may be through the Internet 7 or through a private
network ( as illustrated by the dashed arrows), or the
parental control settings server 18 may be
implemented as a server within the network
infrastructure of the telephone network 11. The
parental control settings servers 18 may include a
parental control enterprise system module and a
web-interface accessible to computing devices 9
( e.g., smartphones, laptops, PCs, etc.) via the
Internet 7, such as a user interface webpage. The
parental control web-interface allows parents to set,
update and/or maintain parental control settings on
the control servers 18. The parental control settings
servers 18 communicate updated parental control
settings to the mobile devices 10 via the telephone
network 11. The mobile devices 10 use these
settings to update, create and/ or maintain parental
control settings profiles that identify the conditions
under which each mobile device 10 feature should
be enabled, disabled, restricted and/or otherwise
controlled.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, 2
instructions for providing a first user interface that
receives input through the touch screen display;
2 Independent claim 20 likewise uses similar language.
4
Appeal2014-002443
Application 13/852,840
instructions for providing a second operating
environment associated with a second user
interface that receives input through the touch
screen display;
instructions for requiring input of an authentication
code through the touch screen display to access the
first user interface from the second operating
environment; and
instructions for accepting, in the first user
interface, a configuration of the access control
configured to permit or deny a request for access
in the second operating environment to one or
more of a system setting, an application program,
an audio file by a media player app, a video file by
the media player app, a hardware resource, an
internet resource, a text file, an image file, and an
electronic book.
Concerning this limitation, the Examiner found that Sprigg substantially
discloses all the limitations of claim 1 except that
Sprigg d[ oes] not explicitly teach:
• instructions for providing a first user interface
that receives input;
• instructions for reqmnng input of an
authentication code to access the first user
interface from the second operating environment;
• a touch screen display and receiving input
through the touch screen display[.]
(Final Act. 8).
The Examiner, however, found that Barton teaches:
5
Appeal2014-002443
Application 13/852,840
(Id. at 8-9.)
• instructions for providing a first user interface
that receives input; ([0089] - [0092])
• instructions for reqmrmg input of an
authentication to access the first user interface
from the second operating environment; ([0089] -
[0092])[.]
The Examiner, thus, determines that,
(Id. at 8-9).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that applying the known technique of
Barton to the known invention of Sprigg would
have yielded predictable results and resulted in an
improved invention. It would have been
recognized that the application of the technique
would have yielded predictable results because the
level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by
the references applied shows the ability to
incorporate such operating mode features into a
similar invention.
Appellant, however, argues,
combining Barton's two operational modes to each
Sprigg receiver device contradicts Sprigg's explicit
purpose of providing a 'single interface [that]
allows parents to control all their children's mobile
phones and mobile computing devices quickly and
efficiently, without requiring any physical access
to the children's devices' ( emphasis added), as
described in paragraph 0024 of Sprigg.
(Appeal Br. 21 ).
Appellant further argues,
6
Appeal2014-002443
Application 13/852,840
[ t ]he present patent application is directed to an
overlay system for a single device that includes a
Dual Mode Manager providing for switchable user
interface modes, including Parent Mode (generic
user interface with open access to any application
and content) and Kid Mode (profile-based safe
environment for kids that includes parent-
controlled time, use, and access restrictions for
applications). In contrast, the Sprigg system
discloses a single online interface that allows
parents to control all their children's devices
without requiring any physical access to the
children's devices. The principle of operation for
the above systems cannot be more opposite
because the present application requires an
individualized system, while the Sprigg system
requires a centralized system, which is similar to
an oil seal requiring resiliency versus an oil seal
requiring rigidity in In re Ratti.
(Id. at 23-24, emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellant. As shown above, the Examiner proposes as
obvious, modifying the child's mobile device of Sprigg to accept input at the
device as taught by Barton, rather than through remote parental control
server 18 and telephone network 11 as taught by Sprigg. ( citing Final Act.
8-9, FF. 2). The Examiner cites paragraphs 89-92 in Barton as the authority
for proposing this modification. Final Act. 8-9. According to Barton, DVR
settings are used to set child controls in the DVR using a menu item
presented by the DVR screen setting: "DVR can be placed into the kids zone
operational mode via selection of a particular menu item in the 'now
7
Appeal2014-002443
Application 13/852,840
playing' list (which is accessible via selection of a certain menu item on the
main menu described above with reference to FIG. 2)." Barton, ,r 91.
But, Sprigg explicitly discourages providing a setting interface on the
device to be controlled stating, the "single interface allows parents to control
all their children's mobile phones and mobile computing devices quickly
and efficiently, without requiring any physical access to the children's
devices (emphasis added)." (FF. 1). We are, thus, persuaded that it would
not be obvious to modify Sprigg to locate control settings at the device to be
controlled as taught by Barton, in order to meet the claimed "instructions for
accepting, in the first user interface, a configuration of the access control
configured to permit or deny a request for access in the second operating
environment to one or more of a system setting ( emphasis added)."
This is because Sprigg explicitly expresses the benefits of its remote
setting arrangement stating it "allows parents to control all their children's
mobile phones and mobile computing devices "quickly and efficiently."
(FF. 1 ). According to Sprigg, this efficiency and quickness stems from its
networked system, stating, "parental control web-interface allow[ing]
parents to set, update and/or maintain parental control settings on the control
servers 18. The parental control settings servers 18 [in tum] communicate
updated parental control settings to the mobile devices 10 via the telephone
network 11." (FF. 2). In light of these teachings, the Examiner has not
adequately explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reason to modify Sprigg as proposed.
8
Appeal2014-002443
Application 13/852,840
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1,
and claim 20 which includes similar features and is rejected on the same
basis. Because claims 2-19 depend from claim 1, and because we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 1, the rejection of claims 1-19 likewise cannot
be sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
REVERSED
9