Ex Parte Strain et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2018

14070133 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/070,133 11/01/2013 Philip Noel George Strain
10575 7590 10/05/2018
Foley & Lardner LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
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.
098981-4073 4021
EXAMINER
CALDERON N, ALVARO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2018 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@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP NOEL GEORGE STRAIN and
WILLIAM KENNETH ROBIN MONTGOMERY 1
Appeal2017-000447
Application 14/070,133
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 through 9, 11, 13 through 1 7, 19,
and 21 through 24. Oral arguments were heard on September 27, 2018. A
transcript of the hearing will be added to the record in due course. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Google Inc. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-000447
Application 14/070,133
INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed invention is directed to a computer-
implemented method for delivering informational events to a user of a
computing device. See Spec., Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method for delivering
informational events to a user of a computing device, the
computing device including a processor and a memory,
said method comprising:
receiving, into the memory from the user of the
computing device, content configuration information
defining a first informational element;
receiving, into the memory from the user of the
computing device, trigger event configuration
information defining a trigger event, the trigger event
including one or more conditions under which the
trigger event occurs, wherein each condition is based
on a particular time schedule, a current location of the
computing device, or when the computing device is
used in a first activity;
receiving, into the memory from the user of the
computing device, target display interface
configuration information defining a target display
interface and a target display software application
running on the target display interface;
determining, by the processor, that the trigger event
is satisfied based on the trigger event configuration
information;
automatically retrieving the first informational
element based on the content configuration information
when the trigger event is satisfied;
configuring, by the processor, the
informational element based on the received
first
target
display interface configuration information;
transmitting the first informational element to the
target display interface; and
2
Appeal2017-000447
Application 14/070,133
displaying the first informational element on the
target display interface.
REJECTION AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 5 through 9, 11, 13 through 17,
19, and 21 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Miller et al. (US 2013/0113696 Al, published May 9, 2013) ("Miller") and
Borzycki et al. (US 2014/0108792 Al, published April 17, 2014)
("Borzycki"). Final Act. 3-5.
ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 11 through 15 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 through 9, 11, 13 through
1 7, 19, and 21 through 24 is in error. 3 These arguments present us with the
following issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Miller
and Borzycki teaches receiving content configuration information defining a
first information element, from the user computing device, and displaying
the first informational element on the target display device as recited in
representative claim 1?
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed March
31, 2016, Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed January 15, 2016, and
the Examiner's Answer ("Answer") mailed September 9, 2016.
3 Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 through 9, 11, 13 through
17, 19, and 21 through 24 as a group. We select claim 1 as representative of
the group and decide this appeal based upon representative claim 1.
3
Appeal2017-000447
Application 14/070,133
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 5 through 9, 11, 13 through 1 7, 19, and
21 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants' arguments focus on Miller, the reference the Examiner's
rejection relies upon to teach these disputed limitations, and assert that it
does not teach the claimed receiving of the content configuration
information as claimed. Br. 12. Appellants argue the paragraphs cited by
the Examiner, paragraphs 62, 72 and 77 of Miller, teach filtering information
for display after it is received from the information flow, which is different
from the claims which "explicitly recite that the received information has
already been filtered." Br. 12.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments. As
identified by the Examiner, representative claim 1 does not recite "the
received information has already been filtered." Answer 4--5. Further,
Appellants' Specification in paragraph 48, discusses using the content
configuration information, to enable "scraping" information received from
outside sources. This process is described as similar to a filtering operation
on received data as:
the content retrieved from data sources 324, when first retrieved
by computing device 304, may initially contain a superset of
data of which only a subset is desired to be viewed by the user
(i.e., only a portion of the data may be "scraped" from the full
content and presented as the informational element 322).
4
Appeal2017-000447
Application 14/070,133
Specification para 48. Thus, Appellants' Specification supports an operation
of the content configuration information being used to filter received data
(and the filtered data is the informational element). In as much as
Appellants' arguments are directed to the claimed display interface, to which
the information element is transmitted to and displayed on, is a separate
device than the device performing the filtering, we are not persuaded of
error. We do not find that the claim is so limited, nor does Appellants'
Specification compel such an interpretation, (see, e.g., paras. 56 and 69
which discusses the system being on one device). 4 Further, as the Examiner
finds, Miller teaches that the system may have other, coupled, display
devices. Final Act 8 (citing multiple paragraphs of Miller). Accordingly,
we are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments as they are not
commensurate in scope with representative claim 1 and we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 through 9, 11, 13 through
17, 19, and 21 through 24.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 through 9, 11, 13
through 17, 19, and 21 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4 Further, we concur with the Examiner's finding that Miller teaches that the
system may have other, coupled, display devices. Answer 6-7. Miller's
discussion in paragraph 77 that the user interface could be on another
display device is particularly pertinent.
5
Appeal2017-000447
Application 14/070,133
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6