Ex Parte Stoufer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2018

14134168 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/134,168 12/19/2013
26158 7590 12/05/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Stoufer
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.
E63830 1200US.l (0067.8) 5368
EXAMINER
BLAUFELD, JUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2018 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):
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
BostonPatents@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL STOUFER
Appeal2018-004770
Application 14/134, 168 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-10, 13-18, and 20, which are all the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Electrolux Home Appliances, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004770
Application 14/134,168
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
"appliance interface technology and, more particularly, to a system, method,
apparatus, and computer program product for customizing an appliance
display." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for customizing an appliance display, the method
compnsmg:
receiving an indication of a selected image and an
indication of a target appliance on which the selected image is
to be displayed, wherein the target appliance is a network
connected household appliance that is a cooking, cleaning or
food preservation appliance;
determining one or more display characteristics of a
display of the target appliance, including one or more of a size
of the display, an orientation of the display, a resolution of the
display, or color capabilities of the display, determining the one
or more display characteristics including retrieving the one or
more display characteristics from a database of display
characteristics for a plurality of network connected household
appliances including the target appliance, each of the plurality
of network connected household appliances being a cooking,
cleaning or food preservation appliance;
processing the selected image based at least in part on the
one or more display characteristics to generate a customized
image formatted for display as a background image on the
display of the target appliance, processing the selected image
including one or more of performing image scaling on the
selected image, modifying a bit depth of the selected image,
cropping the selected image, performing color swapping within
a portion of the selected image, or applying dithering to a
portion of the selected image; and
configuring the target appliance, via a network, to display
the customized image as a background image underlying a
graphical user interface displayed on the display during
operation of the target appliance, the graphical user interface
2
Appeal2018-004770
Application 14/134,168
displayed on the display during operation of the target
appliance comprising operating status information for the target
appliance, wherein at least one method operation is performed
by a processor.
References and Rejections2
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13-16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Keefe (US 2009/0171970 Al; published July 2,
2009), Shintani (US 2002/0088002 Al; published July 4, 2002 ), and Lee
(US 2008/0295033 Al; published November 27, 2008). Final Act. 4--28. 3
Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Keefe, Shintani, Lee, and Park (US 2012/0287034 Al;
published November 15, 2012). Final Act. 28-29.
Claims 10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Keefe, Shintani, Lee, and Lee '385 (2008/0158385 Al;
published July 3, 2008). Final Act. 29-32.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant's
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Rejection dated April 6,
2017 ("Final Act."); (2) Appeal Brief dated November 6, 2017 ("App. Br.");
(3) Examiner's Answer dated February 8, 2018 ("Ans."); and (4) Reply
Brief dated April 3, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
3 The heading omits claim 13 (Final Act. 4), which appears to be a
typographical error, as that section includes the substantive rejection of
claim 13 (Final Act. 17-19). Further, the Examiner cites 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
for the rejection, but the correct basis for the rejections is 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We note Appellant does not contend the discrepancy caused prejudice.
3
Appeal2018-004770
Application 14/134,168
contention that the Examiner erred in determining Keefe, Shintani, Lee
collectively teach independent claim 1. 4 See App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 8-9.
"[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007); see
also id. at 424 ("The proper question to have asked was whether a pedal
designer of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by
developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to
upgrading Asano with a sensor.").
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner cites Keefe as the primary
reference, and modifies Keefe's method to incorporate the teachings of
Shintani and Lee. See Final Act. 4--12. As to incorporating Lee's features in
the proposed combination, the Examiner determines "it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine Keefe, Shintani, and Lee [], arriving at the
claimed invention." Final Act. 12.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided "some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness," as required by KSR. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In
particular, the Examiner's determination that "the prior art ... included
each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art
reference" (Final Act. 12) is inadequate to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. Similarly, the Examiner's determination that "[o]ne of
4 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
4
Appeal2018-004770
Application 14/134,168
ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by
known methods" to achieve predicable results (Final Act. 12-13) is
insufficient. And Appellant's election to not submit evidence about
secondary considerations at this stage (Final Act. 13) does not relieve the
Examiner from his burden to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In
short, the Examiner does not provide sufficient explanation or evidence as to
why one skilled in the art would have modified Keefe's method to
incorporate Lee's features.
In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner does not provide
further reasoning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient support for the
rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, and independent claims 14 and 20 for similar reasons.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-10, 13, and 15-18.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10, 13-18, and
20.
REVERSED
5