Ex Parte GROVER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

14147708 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/147,708 01/06/2014
28395 7590 06/28/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joey Ray GROVER
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.
83414014 6156
EXAMINER
CALDERON N, ALVARO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOEY RAY GROVER and PHILIP JOSEPH DANNE
Appeal 2018-001467
Application 14/147,708
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-001467
Application 14/147,708
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1-20.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to systems and methods of providing user
interfaces on infotainment systems. See Appellants' Specification i-f 1
("Spec."). Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
matching predefined hardcoded application-identifying
information of an application against a plurality of available
application-specific user interface templates;
responsive to the application-identifying information
failing to match any application-specific user interface
template, matching the application-identifying information to
one of a plurality of available application-category user
interface templates; and
providing content from the application in a user
interface, formatted according to a presentation defined by the
matching user interface template.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE 1
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the enablement and written-description requirements, as well
1 Throughout this Decision we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.") dated May 22, 2017, Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated Nov.
27, 2017, the Final Rejection ("Final Act.") dated Nov. 27, 2016, and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated Sept. 26, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-001467
Application 14/147,708
as under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as
the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Langlois et al. (US 2014/0280580 Al, Sept. 18, 2014,
hereinafter "Langlois").
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 US. C. § 112. first paragraph
(written description). and second paragraph
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions that the Examiner
erred in finding the Specification fails to demonstrate Appellants had
possession of "predefined hardcoded application-identifying information,"
as claimed.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each of
Appellants' arguments on pages 2 and 3 of the Answer. In particular, the
Examiner finds, and we agree:
(Appellant[s'] only argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112
rejections) constitutes an unsubstantiated leap to a conclusory
statement after a verbatim duplication (without accompanying
explanations or analysis) of paragraphs 27, 29, and 48-49 of
their Specification. As a first note, the [E]xaminer respectfully
maintains that nowhere in these cited passages (nor anywhere
else in the Specification) is the limitation "predefined
hardcoded" defined, mentioned, or even alluded to as claimed.
Ans. 2-3.
3
Appeal2018-001467
Application 14/147,708
We have reviewed the Appellants' arguments and the portions of the
Specification cited by the Appellants, and we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner's rationale to support the rejection. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (written description), and 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejections ofclaims 1-20 under 35 US.C. § 102and§112. first
paragraph (enablement)
We do not reach the merits of the§ 102 anticipation and§ 112, first
paragraph enablement rejections of claims 1-20. A rejection should not be
based on "speculations and assumptions." In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862
( CCP A 1962 ). "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the
patentability of that claim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite
meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter
does not become obvious-the claim becomes indefinite." In re Wilson,
424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). Speculations and assumptions would
be required to decide the meaning of the terms employed in the claims and
the scope of the claims. Therefore, we conclude that the indefiniteness of
claims 1-20 prevents us from reaching the issues of anticipation and
enablement. Consequently, we reverse proforma the anticipation and
enablement rejections of claims 1-20.
It should be understood, however, that our decision in this regard is
based solely on the indefiniteness of the claimed subject matter and does not
reflect the adequacy or the inadequacy of the prior-art evidence applied in
support of the rejection before us. Once definite claims are presented, the
4
Appeal2018-001467
Application 14/147,708
Examiner is free to apply the same, different, or additional prior art if the
Examiner so chooses.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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) (2011 ).
AFFIRMED
5