Ex Parte JING et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

12537091 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/537,091 08/06/2009 XIANGPENG JING
36738 7590 06/24/2016
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
750B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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.
200902673.01 4664
EXAMINER
TRAN, TRANGU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIANGPENG JING, ABHISHEK PATIL, NOBUKAZU
SUGIYAMA, LING JUN WONG, DIPENDU SAHA,
and DJUNG NGUYEN
Appeal2015-000853
Application 12/537,091
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000853
Application 12/537 ,091
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-12 and 14--20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Representative Claim
8. System comprising:
display;
processor configured for controlling the display and
accessing a tangible computer readable storage medium bearing
instructions to cause the processor to:
communicate with at least first and second home
automation system controllers, the first controller controlling a
home appliance that does not send to the processor or receive
from the processor audio/video information;
establish respective home system modes and appliance
settings for each controller for each mode; and
control the controllers to establish the appliance settings
for the respective appliance based on a mode selection input to
the processor, wherein the processor automatically commands
appliance settings associated with a home theater mode to be
established by the controllers in response to receiving
indication of engagement of an optical storage disk with a disk
player.
Prior Art
Krzyzanowski US 7, 184,848 B2 Feb.27,2007
2
Appeal2015-000853
Application 12/537 ,091
Examiner ;s Rejections
Claims 8-12 and 14--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Krzyzanowski.
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krzyzanowski.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-7
Appellants contend Krzyzanowski "fails to teach that the processor
causes the home theater controller to output a highest fidelity sound
available on speakers of the home theater," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds Krzyzanowski teaches enabling a user to establish a
profile to store favorite settings for system components, and concludes
establishing the favorite setting for the speaker as the highest sound fidelity
available would have been within the level of ordinary skill. Final Act. 9-10
(citing Krzyzanowski, col. 22, 11. 37--43). Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument to show establishing a favorite setting for a
speaker as the highest fidelity available was "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" who can store favorite settings
for system components as taught by Krzyzanowski. See Leapfrog Enters.,
3
Appeal2015-000853
Application 12/537 ,091
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007))) ..
We sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the
rejection of dependent claims 2-7, not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Section 102 rejection of claims 8-12 and 14
Appellants contend Krzyzanowski "fails to say anything about a disk
being engaged with a disk player," and thereby does not describe "the
processor automatically commands appliance settings associated with a
home theater mode to be established by the controllers in response to
receiving indication of engagement of an optical storage disk with a disk
player," as recited in claim 8. App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 1-2. The Examiner
finds Krzyzanowski discloses a computer program stored on an optical disk
which, when executed by the processor, causes the process of managing
devices to be implemented, including automatically establishing appliance
settings for home theater mode. Ans. 13-14.
We agree with the Examiner. The scope of "receiving indication of
engagement of an optical storage disk with a disk player" recited in claim 8
encompasses the system of Krzyzanowski receiving computer program data
from the optical disk, which indicates the optical disk is engaged with the
disk player within the meaning of claim 8. The scope of "automatically
commands appliance settings associated with a home theater mode to be
established by the controllers in response to" the received indication as
recited in claim 8 encompasses the system of Krzyzanowski executing the
4
Appeal2015-000853
Application 12/537 ,091
program received from the disk to automatically configure system
components with the profile settings disclosed throughout Krzyzanowski.
We sustain the rejection of independent claim 8, as well as the
rejection of dependent claims 9--12 and 14, not separately argued, under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
Section 102 rejection of claims 15-19
Appellants contend Krzyzanowski does not describe "responsive to
user input to one or more home appliances and in the absence 1 of a user
change command, automatically changing the modified settings2 associated
with a home mode based on the user input such the modified settings are
changed to the user input automatically," as recited in claim 15. App. Br. 6-
7; Reply Br. 2-3. We disagree with Appellants for the reasons given by the
1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider \~1hether
claims 15-19 satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. Appellants rely on Figure 4 and page 8, line 16 to
page 10, line 2 of the Specification to disclose "in the absence of a user
change command, automatically changing the modified settings." App. Br.
4--5. However, this portion of Appellants' Specification discloses changing
the settings using previous user change commands to device settings, which
is the opposite of changing settings "in the absence of a user change
command" as claimed.
2 The Examiner should also consider whether claims 15-19 satisfy the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The term "in the
absence of a user change command, automatically changing the modified
settings" as recited in claim 15, when read in light of Appellants'
Specification, encompasses changing the settings using previous user change
commands to device settings. Spec. 8: 19 to 9:20. The term "in the absence
of a user change command, automatically changing the modified settings,"
when read in light of Appellants' Specification, contradicts itself.
5
Appeal2015-000853
Application 12/537 ,091
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight columns 15 and 25 of
Krzyzanowski for emphasis.
Column 15 of Krzyzanowski describes maintaining a history for a
system component when it is removed from the network, and using the
history when the user reconnects the system component to the network. Col.
15, 11. 56----67. The scope of the claimed "user input to one or more home
appliances" encompasses re-connecting a system component to the network
as disclosed by Krzyzanowski. The scope of the claimed "in the absence of
a user change command, automatically changing the modified settings
associated with a home mode" encompasses using the stored history settings
of the re-connected system component as disclosed by Krzyzanowski.
Column 25 of Krzyzanowski describes tracking the location of a user
who moves from room to room, and activating a control macro to change
settings of system components in the room the user enters, so the user can
watch a movie in the room the user is currently located. Col. 25, 11. 43-67.
The scope of the claimed "user input to one or more home appliances"
encompasses a home device sensing the user's movement into a room as
disclosed by Krzyzanowski. The scope of the claimed "in the absence of a
user change command, automatically changing the modified settings
associated with a home mode" encompasses a control macro automatically
changing settings to the movie settings when a user enters the room as
disclosed by Krzyzanowski.
We sustain the rejection of independent claim 15, as well as the
rejection of dependent claims 16-19, not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
6
Appeal2015-000853
Application 12/537 ,091
Section 102 rejection of claim 20
Claim 20 recites a processor to "establish at least one appliance
setting of the appliance based at least in part on a theme of a program being
displayed on the display." The Examiner finds Krzyzanowski discloses a
parent can remotely view content displayed on a child's device, as well as
use protocols to block access to objectionable content on the child's device.
Ans. 16-17. Appellants contend a parent is not the subject of claim 20, a
processor using a theme is the subject. Reply Br. 3. Appellants have not
persuasively distinguished a processor establishing an appliance setting
based at least in part on a theme of a program being displayed as recited in
claim 20 from a processor using the protocols received from the parent to
block access to content on a child's device "based at least in part on" the
objectionable "theme of a program being displayed" on the child's device as
disclosed by Krzyzanowski.
Cumulative to the Examiner's finding, we highlight Appellants'
Specification discloses examples of changing appliance settings according to
a theme of a movie, such as dimming the lights for a thriller themed movie,
or cooling the temperature for a winter themed movie. Spec. 11: 15-22.
Krzyzanowski discloses establishing favorite settings for various types of
programs such as news broadcasts or financial programs. Col. 22, 11. 37--43.
Appellants' have not distinguished "establish at least one appliance setting
of the appliance based at least in part on a theme of a program being
displayed on the display" as claimed from establishing favorite settings for
various types of programs as disclosed by Krzyzanowski.
We sustain the rejection of independent claim 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
7
Appeal2015-000853
Application 12/537 ,091
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12 and 14--20 are 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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8