Ex Parte King

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13142653 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/142,653 06/29/2011
22879 7590 08/31/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James M. King
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.
82753386 6281
EXAMINER
XIA,XUYANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES M. KING
Appeal2015-003141
Application 13/142,653
Technology Center 2100
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, IRVINE. BRANCH, and MICHAEL M. BARRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-003141
Application 13/142,653
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to communicating changes in a
user interface device over a network between computers. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
[i] a first computer receiving, over a network, data of a
user interface device attached to a second computer; and
[ii] in response to a request from a device driver in the
first computer:
[iii] determining, by a module in the first
computer, whether updated data of the user interface
device has been received by the first computer, wherein
the updated data of the user interface device is provided
by the user interface device in response to a change
occurring at the user interface device;
[iv] in response to determining that the updated
data of the user interface device has been received by the
first computer, the module providing the received
updated data to the device driver in response to the
request; and
[ v] in response to determining that the updated
data of the user interface device has not been received by
the first computer, the module providing an indication to
the device driver that no change has occurred at the user
interface device.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 7, 9, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over King (US 2007/0198244 Al; Aug. 23, 2007) and
Huylebroeck (US 2005/0169201 Al; Aug. 4, 2005). Ans. 3-9.
2
Appeal2015-003141
Application 13/142,653
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over King, Huylebroeck, and Dirstine (US 2008/0098411 Al;
Apr. 24, 2008). Ans. 10-12.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
King, Huylebroeck, and Lu (US 2010/0146279 Al; June 10, 2010). Ans.
12-13.
Claims 10-13, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over King, Huylebroeck, and Northcutt (US 6,678,741 Bl; Jan.
13, 2004). Ans. 13-18.
Claims 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over King, Huylebroeck, and Sivertsen (US 2004/0236833 Al;
Nov. 25, 2004). Ans. 18-20.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over King, Huylebroeck, Northcutt, and Sivertsen. Ans. 20-21.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over King and Huylebroeck
The Examiner's initial rejection of claim 1 provided little guidance as
to the Examiner's thinking, aside from paragraph citations. See Final Act.
3--4; Ans. 4--5. It is clear, nonetheless, that the Examiner found that King
discloses elements (i}-(iv) and that Huylebroeck discloses element (v).
Ans. 3-5 (citing King, Fig. 2, i-fi-f 12-29; Huylebroeck i-fi-136, 49, 51, 56).
The Examiner reasoned that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to use Huylebroeck's Bluetooth sniff mode for
communication in the devices of King for the purpose of conserving power.
Id. 5.
3
Appeal2015-003141
Application 13/142,653
Appellant argues error because King does not teach or suggest
elements ii-iv and Huylebroeck does not teach or suggest element v. App.
Br. 7-13. Appellant also argues that the Examiner's proposed rationale for
combining the teachings of the references is flawed. Id. 14--15.
We have reviewed the record, including the Examiner's initial
rejection (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4--5), Appellant's initial arguments (App. Br.
7-15), the Examiner's response to Appellant's initial arguments (Ans. 21-
33), and Appellant's rebuttal (Reply Br. 2-9). Although the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 is not a model of clarity, we nonetheless find that the
Examiner has presented a persuasive prima facie case that claim 1 is obvious
over King and Huylebroeck (Ans. 4--5, 21-33) and that Appellant has not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner's findings and conclusion (see Reply
Br. 2-9). We emphasize the following primarily to illuminate why
Appellant's rebuttal arguments are unconvincing.
Appellant argues that King's virtual interposer (see, e.g., Fig. 2,
element 58) does not determine "whether updated data of the user interface
device has been received" in response to a request from the device driver, as
required by claim 1. Reply Br. 3--4. Rather, Appellant argues, "King
appears to describe ... that the 'virtual interposer' merely processes each
response packet when it is received." Id. 4.
We find this argument unpersuasive of error. Appellant's argument
understates the virtual interposer's role in King's process in that the virtual
interposer does more than "merely" processing packets upon receipt. See,
e.g., King i-f 20. The virtual interposer also intercepts calls from the device
driver (Fig. 2, element 56) and generates packets that it sends to System B
(Fig. 2, element 60). Moreover, the virtual interposer provides the
4
Appeal2015-003141
Application 13/142,653
responsive message to the device driver. Id. il 29. While it is true that the
virtual interposer provides the message to the device driver when it receives
the message back from System B (Reply Br. 4 ), the virtual interposer
nevertheless determines "whether updated data of the user interface device
has been received," and it does so in response to the request from the device
driver. King i-fi-120, 29.
We also are unpersuaded of error based on Appellant's argument that
the response packet in King is provided by the USB device in response to
the request and not in response to a change occurring at the user interface
device, as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 4. The Examiner finds that King
discloses several message types that cause a change in the USB device's
configuration (Ans. 22-24 (citing King i-fi-121-29)), thereby resulting in a
response message being provided "by the user interface device in response
to a change occurring at the user interface device," as claim 1 recites.
Appellant's argument (Reply Br. 4) does not persuasively rebut this finding.
The message from System A causing the change does not negate that the
return message is "provided by the user interface device in response to a
change occurring at the user interface device," as recited in claim 1.
Thus, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's determination
that King teaches or suggests elements (i}-(iv). Ans. 4, 21-27.
Regarding limitation (v), Appellant offers several unpersuasive
rebuttals (Reply Br. 5-9) to the Examiner's finding that the combination of
King and Huylebroeck teaches or suggests the limitation and to the
Examiner's ultimate conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to combine the teachings for the purpose of saving
power consumption. Ans. 4--5, 27-33. For instance, Appellant argues that
5
Appeal2015-003141
Application 13/142,653
"in asserting that an alleged 'master unit' that is connected to the PDA is a
first computer, the Answer is engaging in unsupported speculation as to the
teachings of Huylebroeck, which is improper." Reply Br. 6.
Appellant's arguments (Reply Br. 5-8), which fail to consider what
the combined teachings of the reference would have taught or suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art, are unpersuasive. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is
based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). The structural details of claim 1 (i.e., the claimed first and second
computers) are mapped by the Examiner to King's systems A and B. Ans. 4.
The teaching for which the Examiner cites Huylebroeck is that a device may
communicate "NULL" when polled to indicate that it has no data to send.
Ans. 27-31; see Huylebroeck i-f 56; see also id. i-f 51 ("[i]t is only necessary
for the slave unit to wake up and respond to a master POLL packet every
now and again-often enough so that there is no link time out in the master
unit."). So as recited in claim 1, a slave device in Huylebroeck responds to
being polled by: 1) determining that it has not received updated data; and 2)
responding to the poll with a NULL message to indicate that no change has
taken place. See Huylebroeck i-fi-1 51, 56.
Appellant also argues error based on the Examiner's rationale for
combining the teachings of King and Huylebroeck, stating that "contrary to
the Answer, the proposed modification would not result in any power
savings." Reply Br. 9; see also id. 8-9. We are unpersuaded of error.
Appellant argues that "because the 'NULL packet' [in Huylebroeck]
is sent during inactive periods, it is clear that sending device would not be
6
Appeal2015-003141
Application 13/142,653
able to enter a 'deep sleep power mode' during inactive periods in the
manner taught by Huylebroeck." Id. 9 (citing Huylebroeck i-f 56).
Appellant's argument overlooks that the slave device in Huylebroeck does,
in fact, enter deep sleep mode. It periodically wakes up from deep sleep to
respond to a POLL from the master (Huylebroeck i-f 51 ("[i]t is only
necessary for the slave unit to wake up and respond to a master POLL
packet every now and again-often enough so that there is no link time out in
the master unit")). Hence, the slave device entering deep sleep saves power
during periods of inactivity, even though deep sleep is periodically
interrupted to keep the link active by responding to a POLL with NULL to
indicate that no change has occurred. Accordingly, Appellant's argument
that "the proposed modification would not result in any power savings"
(Reply Br. 9}-rendering the Examiner's rationale erroneous-is based on a
misunderstanding of Huylebroeck.
In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner's findings that the combination of King and Huylebroeck teaches
or suggests all limitations of claim 1 and the Examiner's ultimate conclusion
that the combination renders claim 1 obvious. Ans. 4--5, 21-33. We sustain
the Examiner's decision to reject claim 1 and also the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 14 and 16, which Appellant argues on the same basis. App.
Br. 15-16.
Appellant presents separate arguments with respect to the Examiner's
rejection of clams 4 and 7. App. Br. 16-17. We are unpersuaded of error
for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 7, 33-34), which Appellant
does not persuasively rebut (see, generally, Reply Br.). We sustain the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 4 and 7. We also sustain the
7
Appeal2015-003141
Application 13/142,653
Examiner's decision to reject claims 2, 3, and 9, which Appellant does not
argue separately.
The Remaining Rejections
Although Appellant nominally argues the Examiner's remaining
rejections under separate headings, Appellant's arguments that the Examiner
erred are premised on alleged shortcomings in the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1--4, 7, 9, 14, and 16 over King and Huylebroeck. App. Br. 18-21.
Appellant argues that Dirstine, Lu, Northcutt, and Sivertsen do not teach
what King and Huylebroeck allegedly lack. Id. Because we are not
persuaded that there are shortcomings in the Examiner's rejection based on
King and Huylebroeck, we do not find Appellant's remaining arguments
persuasive of error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of
claims 5, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8