Ex Parte NAGASAKA et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2019

13339853 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/339,853 12/29/2011 Hideo NAGASAKA
22850 7590 03/27/2019
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
387643US 1029
EXAMINER
LEE, CHUN KUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2019 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIDEO NAGASAKA, TOMONORI MISA WA, and
T ADAAKI KIMIJIMA
Appeal2018-006230
Application 13/339 ,853 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-5, 10, 12, 15-17, 20, and 21. Claims 6-9, 11, 13, 18,
and 19 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim 14 is cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Saturn Licensing LLC as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006230
Application 13/339,853
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to managing peripheral devices connected to a
network. A device, such as a mobile phone for example, is configured to
connect to a local network and discover the peripherals attached to the local
network. Spec. 18; Fig. 2. The discovered peripheral device information is
transmitted to a server which, in tum, returns an application list of peripheral
device-specific remote control programs for the discovered devices which
are displayed on the mobile phone for selection, installation, and execution
by the user on the mobile phone. Spec. 19-20. Claim 1, reproduced below
with the disputed limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to:
connect to a local network;
acquire device information about one or more
peripheral devices connected to the local network;
transmit the device information about the one or
more peripheral devices to a server, the one or more
peripheral devices each being configured to function
independent of the information processing apparatus;
display an app list on a display section, the app list
being a list of device-specific application programs
received from the server and determined based on the
device information;
transmit app selection information to the server in
response to an input of the app selection information by a
user with respect to the app list; and
acquire and execute a device-specific application
program identified on a basis of the app selection
information from the server, the device-specific
application program being configured to remotely control
the one or more peripheral devices, wherein
2
Appeal2018-006230
Application 13/339,853
the app list includes, for each device-specific application
program included in the list of device-specific application
programs, an indication of which specific peripheral device of
the one or more peripheral devices connected to the local
network is associated with the respective device-specific
application program, and
display of the app list on the display section includes
display of each of the device-specific application programs
simultaneously with the indication of which specific peripheral
device of the one or more peripheral devices connected to the
local network is associated with each device-specific application
program,
wherein each device-specific application program is a
program executed via an operating system of the device, after
install of the device-specific application for execution via the
operating system.
App. Br. 14--15 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Humpleman
Herz
Thomas
Hofrichter
Onogi
Skog
US 7,308,644 B2
US 8,340,635 B2
US 8,458,748 B2
US 2008/0255692 Al
US 2009/0138897 Al
US 2010/0330970 Al
REJECTIONS
Dec. 11, 2007
Dec. 25, 2012
June 4, 2013
Oct. 16, 2008
May 28, 2009
Dec. 30, 2010
Claims 1-5, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Herz, Skog, Hofrichter, Onogi,
and Humpleman. Final Act. 3-10.
3
Appeal2018-006230
Application 13/339,853
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Herz, Skog, Hofrichter, Onogi, Humpleman and Thomas.
Final Act. 10-12.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or
suggest "display[ing] of the app list on the display section includes
display[ing] of each of the device-specific application programs
simultaneously with the indication of which specific peripheral device of the
one or more peripheral devices connected to the local network is associated
with each device-specific application program," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that the combined teachings
of Onogi and Humpleman teach the disputed limitation. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Onogi teaches providing a listing device-specific
applications which indicates the peripheral device to which the device-
specific applications are associated. Ans. 13 ( citing Onogi Figs 1, 4---6 and
,r,r 62-70). The Examiner further finds Humpleman teaches simultaneous
display of a peripheral and its application for controlling it. Ans. 13 ( citing
Humpleman Fig. 11, col. 4, 11. 18-21 and col. 17, 1. 54---col. 18, 1. 3). The
Examiner finds the combination of Onogi' s device-specific app listing
combined with Humpleman's simultaneous display teaches the disputed
limitation. Id.; see also Final Act. 6.
Appellants argue the Examiner has erred because Onogi "does not
describe that the displayed application list includes each of the application
programs together with the indication of which specific peripheral device is
4
Appeal2018-006230
Application 13/339,853
associated with each application program" but instead "describes in
paragraph [0070] that an application is selected by a user without any
indication of which peripheral devices are associated with the application."
App. Br. 8-9. Appellants further argue "once a selected application is
executed [in Ogogi's device list, it] does not indicate a specific peripheral
device associated with the selected application" because "the device list is a
list of plural devices among which the user selects for association with the
executed application." Final Act. 9. Seeking to distinguish the teachings of
Humpleman, Appellants also contend it "merely describes displaying
controls for two selected devices" which "do not list device-specific
application programs, as no application program names are listed." App.
Br. 9. Appellants also argue Humpleman differs from the claimed invention
in that "the displayed controls do not include each of the available control
interfaces displayed simultaneously with their associated peripheral device,
but instead displays only two selected devices and the controls associated
therewith." App. Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Onogi teaches the
use of an application lists which "may include ... application programs
meeting specific requirements." Onogi ,r 62. Onogi further teaches that the
application listing include "the application programs corresponding to all the
devices in the home network" and that "once a specific device is selected,
the applications corresponding to the particular device may be extracted
from the list and indicated to the user." Onogi ,r 59. Thus, Onogi teaches
displaying in a list, each device-specific application program which
corresponds to a specific peripheral device connected to the local network.
5
Appeal2018-006230
Application 13/339,853
This description in Onogi differs from the disputed limitation only in
that it does not describe displaying a list for multiple peripheral devices at
the same time, a difference that Appellants contend supports a conclusion of
non-obviousness. We note that nothing in the language of the claim requires
that multiple peripheral devices be connected to the network or displayed to
the user. Rather, the claim recites "acquir[ing] device information about one
or more peripheral devices," which means the claim covers both the
acquisition of device information for one peripheral device, or more than
one peripheral device. Thus, in a network having only a single connected
device, Onogi' s display of the application list is encompassed by the
disputed limitation because it requires there be only a single peripheral
device in the list. The list also includes an indication of which specific
peripheral device the applications are associated with by virtue of being
listed with the only peripheral device in the network. Thus, Appellants'
arguments incorrectly presume that the claim requires that multiple
peripheral devices be simultaneously displayed in the list.
Nevertheless, even if Appellants' narrow construction were correct,
we agree with the Examiner that Humpleman cures any deficiency found in
Onogi. As we noted above, Onogi teaches displaying in a list, each device-
specific application program which corresponds to a specific peripheral
device connected to the local network. What is missing from Onogi, then, is
(1) a teaching that multiple peripheral devices and their corresponding
applications are displayed simultaneously; and (2) an indication of the
correspondence between devices and applications.
Humpleman establishes that it was known to provide to a user
interface that includes display of multiple peripheral devices simultaneously
6
Appeal2018-006230
Application 13/339,853
along with control functions associated with those devices. Specifically, the
user interface depicted in Humpleman's Figure 11 shows two different
devices, "Dads TV" and "Jims DVD," which each have specific control
functions associated with them. For example, Dads TV includes four
separate tabs within the frame 706 which each provide device control
functionality-Programming, Preferences, Front Panel, and Channel
Security. Similarly, Jims DVD includes various selectable options for
control functions inside of frame 708. In both cases, the functionality is
specific to the device as indicated by the selectable functions being placed
within its frame, as well as the logo image which provides an indication that
the control functionality is associated with that specific device. And while
Appellants are correct that Figure 11 does not show displayed controls
which include each of the available control interfaces displayed
simultaneously, Humpleman teaches, or at least suggests, this functionality
because it states that "it should be appreciated that the session manager may
select any number of devices for presentation to the user as possible choices
for operation, for which the selection buttons remain activated."
Humpleman col. 16, 11. 49-51.
In sum, we agree with the Examiner than any deficiency in Onogi
with respect to the disputed limitation is remedied by the teachings of
Humpleman. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error, and we
sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as for independent claims 10 and 12
for which Appellants rely on the same arguments. Appellants do not offer
any separate arguments for patentability of any dependent claims.
Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of the remaining dependent claims.
7
Appeal2018-006230
Application 13/339,853
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 10, 12, 15-
17, 20, and 21.
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