Ex Parte Marwah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

12399366 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/399,366 0310612009 Manish Marwah
56436 7590 06/01/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82249274 1907
EXAMINER
LAU, HO! CHING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANISH MARW AH and
RATNESH KURNAR SHARMA
Appeal2014-006169
Application 12/399,366
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-3 and 5-19. The Examiner has objected to claims 4 and 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-006169
Application 12/399,366
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application concerns "a mobile device configured to
obtain information pertaining to at least one entity in a room containing a
plurality of entities and a method for implementing the mobile device to
obtain the information." Spec. i-f 12. Claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent.
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for obtaining information with a mobile device
pertaining to at least one entity in a room containing a plurality
of entities, said method comprising:
a) identifying, by the mobile device, a location of the
mobile device with respect to a map of the room, said map
containing identifications and locations of the plurality of
entities, wherein the plurality of entities are connected to a
network;
b) determining, by the mobile device, an identification of
the at least one entity based upon a correlation of the identified
location of the mobile device with respect to the map of the room;
c) connecting the mobile device to the net\~1ork; and
d) obtaining, by the mobile device, information pertaining
to the at least one entity through the connection with the network.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Teplitsky (US 2007/0191026 Al; Aug. 16, 2007), Bandy
(US 2007/0024436 Al; Feb. 1, 2007), and Richey (US 2007/0142065 Al;
June 21, 2007).
Claims 12-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Teplitsky and Richey.
2
Appeal2014-006169
Application 12/399,366
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner's combination of Teplitsky, Bandy,
and Richey does not teach or suggest claim 1 's "identifying, by the mobile
device" and "determining, by the mobile device" steps. See App. Br. 8-14;
Reply Br. 4---6. Appellants assert "Teplitsky is clear in its intent for the
mapping ... to be performed by the computer system 12 and not the WCD
[wireless communication device] 20" and "Teplitsky's intended purpose is to
provide a computer system 12 that provides location-based information to a
wireless communication device." App. Br. 10-11. Appellants argue the
Examiner's combination of the cited art "may result in the 'information
processing' [e.g., mapping] occurring at the WCD 20." Id. According to
Appellants, this "would completely change" Teplitsky's principle of
operation and "render Teplitsky unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." Id.
at 10-11. Appellants contend Bandy does not remedy these deficiencies. Id.
at 13; Reply Br. 4---6.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. Appellants contend
Teplitsky's principle of operation and intended purpose are limited to a
computer system providing location information to a wireless
communication device as described in certain embodiments. See, e.g., App.
Br. 10-11. But Teplitsky suggests that either the computer system or the
wireless communication device can perform the disclosed methods of
generating and providing location information:
The methods associated with the described embodiments are
executable on the computer platforms of a wireless
communications device such as cellular telephone 104, and on
computer system 12, embodiments of the system can be
3
Appeal2014-006169
Application 12/399,366
implemented with at least one program resident in a computer
readable medium, where the program directs a wireless
communications device 20, such as cellular telephone 104,
and/or computer system 16 to perform the steps of the method.
Teplisky i141 (emphases added).
Moreover, Teplitsky explains that "[w]hile the various embodiments
have been illustrated and described, it will be clear that the subject matter of
this document is not limited to these embodiments only." Id. i148 (emphasis
added). Teplitsky further notes that "[n]umerous modifications, changes,
variations, substitutions and equivalents will be apparent to those skilled in
the art .... " Id. See also id. i-f 13 ("The disclosed embodiments will
hereinafter be described in conjunction with the appended drawings
provided to illustrate and not to limit the disclosed embodiments . ... "
(emphasis added)), i120 ("It should be understood that these examples are
not to be construed as limiting .... " (emphasis added)).
In light of this; we disagree with Appellants that Teplitsky's principle
of operation and intended purposed are limited to a computer system
providing location information to a wireless communication device. As
discussed above, Teplitsky suggests that a wireless communication device or
a computer system can perform the disclosed methods of generating and
providing location information.
Here, the Examiner found a combination of Teplitsky and Bandy
would have suggested most of the claimed subject matter, except for
performing the claimed "identifying," "determining," and "obtaining" steps
"by the mobile device." See, e.g., Final Act. 5-7. The Examiner found
Richey discloses a system in which a mobile device or a computer server can
perform information processing. See id. at 7; Ans. 15-16. Based on these
4
Appeal2014-006169
Application 12/399,366
findings, among others, the Examiner concluded the combination of
Teplitsky, Bandy, and Richey would have suggested a system in which
Teplitsky's computer system performs some processing and Teplitsky's
mobile device performs the mobile-device specific processing steps recited
in claim 1. Id. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner's
obviousness analysis is erroneous.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites "wherein determining the identification of the at least
one entity further comprises determining the identification of the at least one
entity based solely upon the identified location of the mobile device with
respect to the map of the room." Appellants argue Teplitsky fails to disclose
this limitation because "Teplitsky discusses than an item identification is
received, that a map information is generated corresponding to the location
of the wireless device, and that directions to the identified item are provided
to the wireless communication device." App. Br. 14--15 (citing Teplitsky
ii 6).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner
explained in the Answer that Teplitsky teaches this limitation because
"Teplitsky discusses item location information [with] respect to item
description/information (implemented as item identification to identifying a
particular item) based solely upon the identified location of the mobile
device (based on the current position of the mobile device) with respect to
the map of the room." Ans. 19-20 (citing Teplitsky ii 21, Fig. 3); Final Act.
7 (citing Teplitsky iiii 20-21, 28; Figs. 1-3, 6). See also Teplitsky iiii 44--47
(describing the method of communicating location-based information
illustrated in Fig. 6). Appellants do not persuasively address this
5
Appeal2014-006169
Application 12/399,366
explanation or any of the cited portions of Teplitsky. Accordingly,
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites "wherein obtaining the information in the mobile
device further comprises obtaining information related to at least one of' the
following: "operational parameters, configuration parameters, thresholds,
reference parameters, applications, computing, storage, network, cooling
infrastructure, power delivery, and infrastructure of the at least one entity."
Appellants contend Bandy's figures 5 and 8-10 and paragraphs 21 and 24--
26 "in no way discuss anything even remotely similar to the features of
claim 8." App. Br. 15.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner also
found Bandy's paragraph 57 teaches the claimed subject matter. Ans. 20.
This paragraph discloses that "Fig. 10 shows an example display 1000 of
user interface 204 displaying example data" that includes, among other
things, "configuration data related to item 904, specification data related to
item 904, and performance data related to item 904." Bandy i-f 57 (emphases
omitted). Appellants have not persuasively addressed this finding.
Appellants have therefore not persuaded us the Examiner erred.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not present separate, persuasive patentability arguments
for claims 3, 5-7, and 9-19. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejections
of these claims.
6
Appeal2014-006169
Application 12/399,366
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-3 and 5-19.
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).
AFFIRMED
7