Ex Parte Hsieh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

12717479 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/717,479 03/04/2010
60601 7590 06/21/2018
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yu-Chun Hsieh
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.
2450/2089PUS 1 2872
EXAMINER
MCLOONE, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU-CHUN HSIEH
Appeal2017-003269
Application 12/717,479
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of twice-rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 13-17, and 19-24,
which are all of the claims pending in this application. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is ZIPPY
TECHNOLOGY CORP. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 2, 3, 6-12, and 19 have been canceled. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2017-003269
Application 12/717,479
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a multi-object switch transmission
method. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A multi-object switch transmission method for
computer keyboard to establish a data transmission linkage
between a computer keyboard and at least one information
process system through wireless transmission, the computer
keyboard including a plurality of switch keys and a key set, a
circuit unit to generate electric signals for characters or symbols
upon depressing of the key set and to generate a plurality of
device selection codes upon depressing of the switch keys, a
microcontroller electrically connected to the circuit unit to
detect the electric signals and the device selection codes, and a
memory unit electrically connected to the microcontroller, the
method comprising the steps of:
step 1: starting an object detection mode to detect the
information process system enabled for linking;
step 2: requesting to establish two-way communication
with the information process system, obtaining a device
identification code and a device authorization code of the
information process system to store together with a
corresponding one of the plurality of device selection codes in
the memory unit, the corresponding one of the plurality of
device selection codes linked to the device identification code
and the device authorization code in the memory unit;
step 3: judging whether to start the object detection mode
again, wherein the judging includes determining whether there
is at least one additional information process system and
determining there is a judgment to renew searching for
additional information process; returning to the step 1 to detect
another information process system enabled for linking when
judging outcome is positive to get another set of the device
identification code and the device authorization code; otherwise
proceeding to the following step; and
step 4: judging the device selection code generated from
the computer keyboard controlled by the user, accessing the
corresponding device identification code, and the device
2
Appeal2017-003269
Application 12/717,479
authorization code from the memory unit according to the
device selection code generated by the circuit unit and detected
by the microcontroller, and establishing the two-way
communication with the corresponding information process
system according to the device identification code and the
device authorization code and getting authorization of
establishing a data transmission linkage to establish the data
transmission linkage.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ramakesavan et al. (US 2003/0003902
Al, published Jan. 2, 2003) ("Ramakesavan") and Bocking et al. (US
2006/0058013 Al, published Mar. 16, 2006) ("Bocking"). Non-Final Act.
2-5.
Claims 4, 5, 17, and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Ramakesavan and Bocking, combined with various other
prior art references. Non-Final Act. 5-11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 13-17, and 19-24
in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in
the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not
to make, in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of error. We agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set
forth in the Answer (Ans. 2--4) and in the Non-Final Office Action from
3
Appeal2017-003269
Application 12/717,479
which this appeal was taken (Non-Final Act. 2-13). We provide the
following explanation for emphasis.
Appellant argues claims 1 and 13-16 as a group (App. Br. 10), and we
choose claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant contends the cited portions of Ramakesavan do not teach or
suggest "how a selection device can be applied on a keyboard and does not
teach one of ordinary skill in the art to use the original circuit to output the
character codes and the device selection codes according to the same electric
signal generated by pressing the key of the keyboard." App. Br. 10; see also
Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues it would not have been obvious to an artisan
of ordinary skill how to link the selection code to the electric signal
generated by the pressing the circuit. Id.
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred.
Appellant has not identified, and we do not see, where claim 1 recites or
otherwise specifies how the selection code is linked to the generated electric
signal. Thus, Appellant's contention is based on unclaimed features, such as
linking selection codes with Bluetooth communication protocol codes. See
App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 3. Moreover, Appellant has not presented sufficient
objective evidence or persuasive argument to rebut the Examiner's findings.
Specifically, Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's
findings that Ramakesavan teaches using electrical codes from the keyboard
and device selection codes to select one of the selection devices 14 by
pressing FIND button (20) and POLL button (22), which are linked together
with the Bluetooth communication protocol codes and used to establish
4
Appeal2017-003269
Application 12/717,479
communication with different devices 14. Ans. 3 ( citing Ramakesavan Figs.
1--4; ,r,r 2, 17-18, 22, 24--25).
Appellant further argues there was no "successfully manufactured"
Bluetooth keyboard at the time of Ramakesavan, and Appellant's invention
"changes the tendency of the keyboard market." App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because Appellant does not
provide any basis for them. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments
and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
( attorney argument is not evidence).
For these reasons, on the record before us, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ramakesavan and
Bocking teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1.
Appellant also contends the Examiner engaged in impermissible
hindsight in modifying Ramakesavan with the teachings of Bocking. App.
Br. 11.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner has set forth articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings for the combination. Non-Final
Act. 4--5. Appellant has not identified any knowledge relied upon by the
Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant's disclosure and that was
not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Nor
has Appellant provided objective evidence of secondary considerations,
which "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v.
5
Appeal2017-003269
Application 12/717,479
Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2013).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner's § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 19, which Appellant argues is patentable for similar
reasons. App. Br. 11. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 4, 5, 13-17, 20-24, for which Appellant makes no
additional, substantive arguments. Id. at 12.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4, 5,
13-17, and 19-24.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6