10401911 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2012)

Ex Parte Mercs

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 11, 2012

10401911 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JAMES S. MERCS ____________ Appeal 2010-005427 Application 10/401,911 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005427 Application 10/401,911 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-55, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is a software application, known as a “ubiquitous companion,” for controlling and interacting with devices on a network. See generally Abstract; Spec. 3-8; Figs. 1-2. Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A ubiquitous companion configured to connect to a host device, the ubiquitous companion comprising: an agent interface configured to provide communication between the ubiquitous companion and an agent residing on the host device accessible to the ubiquitous companion, said agent interface configured to access host device data indicating one or more capabilities of the host device; a command interface configured to build one or more agent commands according to service functionality in the host device data and a request selection received from a user through the host device, said command interface building the one or more commands to control one or more remote devices remote to the host device, wherein interface functionalities of the host device are different from those of the one or more remote devices; an output interface for providing feedback to the user through the host device in a format that is adapted according to the host device data such that functions of the one or more remote devices are controllable from the host device using the format set up by the output interface; a controller for controlling interactions among the agent interface, the command interface, and the output interface, wherein the interactions among the interfaces in the ubiquitous companion are configured to provide format adaptability between the host device and the one or more remote devices with different interface functionalities; and wherein the ubiquitous companion is a portable unit that is portable from one device to another device. Appeal 2010-005427 Application 10/401,911 3 THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-35 and 40-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Humpleman (US 6,288,716 B1; Sept. 11, 2001) and Janik (US 7,130,616 B2; Oct. 31, 2006 (filed Aug. 7, 2001)). Ans. 3-32.1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 36-39 and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Humpleman, Janik, and Mikurak (US 7,124,101 B1; Oct. 17, 2006 (filed Nov. 22, 1999)). Ans. 33-34. 3. The Examiner rejected claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Humpleman, Janik, and Morais (US 2003/0229779 A1; Dec. 11, 2003 (filed June 10, 2002)). Ans. 35. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUMPLEMAN AND JANIK The Examiner finds that Humpleman discloses a companion with every recited feature of independent claim 1 except for (1) a portable ubiquitous companion, and (2) interactions among the companion’s interfaces provide format adaptability between host and remote devices, but cites Janik as teaching these features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3-7. Appellant argues that even if Humpleman’s session manager is an “agent interface,” it does not (1) provide communication between the ubiquitous companion and host device agent, and (2) access host device data 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 8, 2009 (supplemented December 3, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 9, 2009. Appeal 2010-005427 Application 10/401,911 4 indicating device capabilities as claimed. Br. 22-25. Appellant adds that while Humpleman’s home network controls home devices, it does not disclose a controller for controlling interactions among the agent, command, and output interfaces as claimed. Br. 25-26. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Humpleman and Janik collectively would have taught or suggested a ubiquitous companion with (1) an agent interface configured to (a) provide communication between the companion and host device agent, and (b) access host device data indicating device capabilities, and (2) a controller for controlling interactions among the companion’s agent, command, and output interfaces? ANALYSIS Claims 1-11 We begin by noting that independent claim 1 recites a “ubiquitous companion” configured to connect to a host device, where the companion has three interfaces, namely agent, command, and output interfaces, and a controller for controlling interactions among those interfaces. Despite its somewhat unusual terminology, Appellant describes a “ubiquitous companion” as a software application stored on a portable memory device that can, among other things, provide an interface according to the host device’s capabilities, thus allowing a user to interact with devices in a uniform and user-friendly manner. Spec. 3:4-15. This interaction is further enhanced by graphically or audibly representing the “companion” in a Appeal 2010-005427 Application 10/401,911 5 personalized and customized way, such as a particular celebrity, character, family member, animal, or generic person. Spec. 3:16-26. This feature is said to enable the user to develop a relationship with the “companion” similar to that with a “virtual pet” so that the user more enjoys interacting with the “companion,” and likewise the devices accessible to the “companion.” Spec. 3:27-31. Appellant provides various examples of this functionality including inserting memory cards with companion software into cellular phones, personal digital assistants, and laptop computers to enable the user to interact with various associated devices via the companion. See generally Spec. 4:1–7:23. As shown in Appellant’s Figure 1, companion 105 is a software application stored on memory card 110 that communicates with host agent 125 of host device 115 which is connected to remote devices 135 via network 130. See generally Spec. 7:25–9:29. Appellant’s Figure 2 details the companion, showing its respective output, command, and agent interfaces 225, 220, and 215, as well as the companion’s control component 205. See generally Spec. 9:30–11:23. Although not limiting, this description nonetheless informs our construction of the recited “ubiquitous companion” which, as noted above, must have three interfaces and a controller according to claim 1. Although the Examiner finds that Humpleman’s “companion” contains these four recited elements in the rejection, the Examiner’s mapping is hardly a model of clarity regarding exactly which elements in Humpleman correspond to the three interfaces and the controller. See Ans. 3-6, 35-36. In the rejection, the Examiner quotes six different passages from Humpleman as teaching an “agent interface,” but never squarely identifies Appeal 2010-005427 Application 10/401,911 6 this interface, let alone explains how these quoted passages teach or suggest this interface. See Ans. 3-4. Two of theses passages expressly refer to a “session manager,” while the other passages refer to various other aspects of Humpleman’s functionality including a “layered interface model,” signalling a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) server, and HTML files stored in home devices. See id. This ambiguous articulation of the Examiner’s position perhaps explains why Appellant assumed that the Examiner equates Humpleman’s session manager to the recited agent interface. See Br. 24-25. We share that assumption, particularly since the Examiner (1) indicates that Humpleman’s “section [sic: session] manager” corresponds to an agent, and (2) repeatedly refers to Humpleman’s session manager interface functionality. See Ans. 35-36. Humpleman’s session manager is a software agent that assists users in interacting with a home network and various connected “home devices,” thus acting as the primary interface between the user and the network such as that shown in Humpleman’s Figure 1. Humpleman, col. 9, ll. 46-63; col. 14, ll. 26-62; Figs. 1, 9. As shown in Figure 1, a browser-based digital TV (DTV) 102 provides a human network interface, and thus acts as a client with respect to home devices that function as servers, including digital video cassette recorder (DVCR) 110, digital video device (DVD) 108, DSS- network interface unit (NIU) 104, and security system 120. Humpleman, col. 4, l. 42 – col. 7, l. 25; Fig. 1. To function as an interface, the session manager generates a session page that provides an interface to allow users to command and control the home devices to perform various services. Humpleman, col. 9, ll. 46-63; Appeal 2010-005427 Application 10/401,911 7 col. 14, ll. 26-62; Fig. 9. As shown in the example of Figure 9, the session manager 750 sends command and control information to home devices DTV 752 and DVCR 754 to cause those devices to communicate with each other via an audio-video stream. Id. An exemplary session page is shown in Figure 8 which enables selecting particular devices and obtains those devices’ capabilities to find those devices with matching capabilities. Humpleman, col. 15, l. 22 – col. 16, l. 46; Fig. 8. Although we can see from this functionality how Humpleman’s session manager functions as an “agent interface” to not only provide communications between devices, but also access device capability data, this interface—and the two other interfaces and controller—must nevertheless be part of the ubiquitous companion according to claim 1. The Examiner, however, indicates that Humpleman’s DHCP server is the “ubiquitous companion.” Ans. 35.2 Although the DHCP server discovers home devices connected to the network (Humpleman, col. 6, ll. 48-52; col. 11, l. 22 – col. 12, l. 13; Fig. 4A), we fail to see—nor has the Examiner shown—that this server which the Examiner equates to the recited “ubiquitous companion” contains the recited agent interface which, as noted above, the Examiner apparently equates to Humpleman’s session manager. Since the session manager provides a graphical user interface for the user to control the networked devices as noted above, the session manager is associated with the browser-based client DTV 102 to facilitate this user interaction with the network via the browser—not the DHCP server. 2 But see Ans. 6 (admitting that Humpleman lacks a ubiquitous companion and citing Janik for this teaching); Br. 25 (noting this admission). Appeal 2010-005427 Application 10/401,911 8 We reach the same conclusion regarding the controller which controls interactions among the companion’s agent, command, and output interfaces. These interfaces have not been squarely identified, let alone shown to have interactions controlled by a controller that is also within the companion—a controller that is likewise not squarely identified. See Ans. 3-6, 35-36. Although the session manager enables selecting controlled devices via a page as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 36), the Examiner does not show how this selection controls interactions among the companion’s three interfaces via a controller that is likewise in the companion—a companion that is said to correspond to the DHCP server as noted above. See Ans. 35. We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11 for similar reasons. Claims 12-35 and 40-53 We will, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-35 and 40-53. Although we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 as noted above, these arguments are not commensurate with the scope of independent claims 12, 47, 49, 52, and 53, despite Appellant characterizing these claims as reciting limitations “similar” to limitations “(a)” and “(e)” (i.e., the agent interface and controller limitations) of claim 1. See Br. 22, 25-26. Not only do independent claims 47 and 52 not recite a companion, let alone a ubiquitous companion, independent claims 12, 47, 49, 52, and 53 do not recite the particulars of this companion in claim 1, namely its three interfaces and controller, that we found to be lacking in the Examiner’s rejection as noted above. Appellant’s arguments (Br. 21-27) do not squarely Appeal 2010-005427 Application 10/401,911 9 address—let alone persuasively rebut—the Examiner’s findings regarding these other independent claims. Ans. 12-14, 25-32. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 12, 47, 49, 52, and 53, and dependent claims 13-35, 40- 46, 48, 50, and 51 not separately argued with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUMPLEMAN, JANIK, AND MIKURAK We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 36-39 over Humpleman, Janik, and Mikurak. Ans. 33-34. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in connection with claim 12 and allege that the additional cited references fail to cure those purported deficiencies. Br. 27-28. We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons previously discussed. We will not, however, sustain the rejection of claim 55. Since the Examiner has not shown that the Mikurak cures the deficiencies noted above regarding independent claim 1 from which claim 55 depends, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 55 for similar reasons. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUMPLEMAN, JANIK, AND MORAIS We likewise will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 54 over Humpleman, Janik, and Morais. Ans. 35. Since the Examiner has not shown that the Morais cures the deficiencies noted above regarding independent claim 1 from which claim 54 depends, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 54 for similar reasons. Since this issue is Appeal 2010-005427 Application 10/401,911 10 dispositive regarding our reversing the rejection of this claim, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments pertaining to this claim. Br. 28-30.3 CONCLUSION Under § 103, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11, 54, and 55, but did not err in rejecting claims 12-53. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-55 is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART babc 3 We note in passing, however, that the Examiner failed to respond to Appellant’s arguments regarding the alleged shortcomings of Morais as they pertain to claim 54 (Br. 29-30). See Ans. 35-36. Nevertheless, this error is moot since we need not reach the merits of this argument for the reasons noted in the opinion.