Ex Parte Scheer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2017

14061465 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/061,465 10/23/2013 Fred SCHEER 20130930 6128
7590 05/23/201725537
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
GEE, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.
Appeal 2017-002345
Application 14/061,465
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-002345
Application 14/061,465
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4—9, 12—17, and 20, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[a]n approach for implementing a
context-aware remote controller application on a controller device for
interfacing with one or more target devices and controlling one or more
functionalities and/or processes at the target.” (Abstract.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, exemplifies the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of comprising:
initiating a presentation of one or more user interface options
at a controller device;
initiating sending a command message from a controller
device to a user device;
determining a target context based on a target context
identifier included in the command message;
initiating at the controller device an update to the presentation
of the one or more user interface options at the controller device
based on the command message that has been sent from the
controller device;
initiating a validation of the target context identifier at the
user device;
performing one or more actions at the user device based on
the validation,
1 The named inventor is Fred Scheer.
2
Appeal 2017-002345
Application 14/061,465
wherein at a time the target context identifier at the user
device is not validated, the one or more actions comprise
notifying the controller device that the target context identifier is
not valid; and
initiating a dynamic presentation of the one or more user
interface options at the controller device based on content
consumption history information.
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Roberts et al
Hong et al.
Woods et al.
Zhang et al.
US 2012/0062796 Al
US 2013/0152135 Al
US 2013/0257749 Al
US 2014/0035835 Al
Mar. 15,2012
June 13, 2013
Oct. 3, 2013
Feb. 6, 2014
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hong, Woods, and Zhang. (See Final
Act. 3-7.)
2. Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hong, Woods, Zhang, and Roberts. (See Final Act. 7—8.)
ANALYSIS
Appellant states that “the patentability of all of the appealed claims
including independent claims 1, 9, and 17 stands and falls with independent
claim 1.” (App. Br. 5.) As to claim 1, Appellant asserts error in the
Examiner’s finding that the combination satisfies the claim language
3
Appeal 2017-002345
Application 14/061,465
“determining a target context based on a target context identifier included in
the command message” and “initiating a validation of the target context
identifier at the user device.” {Id. at 6.)
The problem with the rejection, according to Appellant, is that “the
Examiner construes the claimed command message to read on the control
signal of Hong et al.” but “[t]he system of Hong et al. does not teach
anything about what the control signal includes, and thus, cannot
contemplate the claimed target context identifier.” (App. Br. 7.) Appellant
also asserts that Hong “teaches away [from] the claimed invention in that the
control signal does not require use of a separate mechanism (e.g., ‘target
context identifier’) to achieve its objective of controlling the operation of an
application” and “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not seek to
introduce unnecessary complexity to the control signal by requiring more
processing.” {Id. at 9.)
We are not persuaded of error. Appellant’s argument hinges on the
notion that the claim requires a command message and a “separate” target
context identifier included in the command message. {See App. Br. 7.) As
written, however, claim 1 merely requires a “target context identifier
included in the command message.” This allows for a target context
identifier that is included in and coextensive with the message—i.e., the
target context identifier and the command message may be the same thing.
We thus agree with the Examiner that the claim covers “any reference that
teaches the use of a controller device for inputting a command to access the
designated object/application.” (Ans. 10.) Any “message” that is used to
4
Appeal 2017-002345
Application 14/061,465
control an application,2 as in Hong, necessarily includes a “target context
identifier.” Appellant’s “teaching away” argument is not persuasive
because, for the foregoing reasons, the “target context identifier” is not a
“separate mechanism” that would “require[e] more processing.”
Appellant also argues Woods does not teach or suggest “initiating a
validation of the target context identifier at the user device” and Zhang does
not teach or suggest “initiating a dynamic presentation of the one or more
user interface options at the controller device based on content consumption
history information,” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 7—9.) Appellant has
not persuasively addressed the Examiner’s findings, and we agree with the
Examiner that Woods and Zhang teach or suggest the disputed limitations.
(See Ans. 11; Final Act. 4—5.)
Because we find Appellant’s arguments insufficient to establish error,
we sustain the Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 4—9, 12—17, and 20.
2 The Specification states that “the command message may include a target
context identifier so that the RC application 107 at a target device 101
receiving the command message may determine an intended content item,
application, process, or the like, which the user may wish to interact with
and effectuate a state change.” (Spec. 1 53.)
5
Appeal 2017-002345
Application 14/061,465
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 4—9, 12—17, and 20 are affirmed.
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
6