Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2022

2021001080 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2022)

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. 16/066,413 06/27/2018 Alexander Wayne Clark 84973927 6402 22879 7590 03/28/2022 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544 EXAMINER MOHAN, MONISHWAR J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2442 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2022 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): ipa.mail@hp.com jessica.pazdan@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALEXANDER WAYNE CLARK, RICHARD E. HODGES, and KENT E. BIGGS ____________ Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,4131 Technology Center 2400 _______________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-15. Appeal Br. 23-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Hewlett- Packard Development Company, L.P. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed June 8, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed December 1, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed October 5, 2020 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed December 12, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and Specification filed June 27, 2018 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE A digital pen may be calibrated, via “calibration data of a display device during operation so that the movement of the digital pen on the display device can be correctly captured by a computing device paired with the digital pen or by the digital pen.” Spec. ¶ 7. “However, when the digital pen is to be used on another display device, the digital pen may need to perform another calibration operation with the other display device. Thus, the transition between the two display devices may be time consuming.” Id. Appellant’s claimed invention seeks to provide “a computing device [shown in Figure 1] to exchange calibration data of one or more electronic devices [e.g., digital pens] with another computing device.” Id. at 8. This way, “the time an electronic device takes to transition between multiple electronic device may be reduced.” Id. Figure 1 is reproduced below with our annotations. Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 3 Figure 1 depicts first computing device 100 to automatically transmit calibration data 110 to second computing device 112, via network connection 114, based on a location of second computing device 112 relative to first computing device 110 and based on an association with second computing device 112, via a communication session. Spec. ¶¶ 8-12. Representative Claim Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent. Representative claim 1, as reproduced below, is written from the perspective of computing device 100 shown in Figure 1. 1. A first computing device comprising: a storage device to store calibration data of an electronic device coupled to the first computing device; a network interface to establish a network connection with a second computing device; and a processor to: access first location information representing a first location of the first computing device; access second location information representing a second location of the second computing device; compare the first and second locations; determine whether the first computing device and the second computing device are associated via an ongoing communication session; based on the comparison of the first and second locations and the determination of whether the first computing device and the second computing device are associated via the ongoing communication session, determine whether to automatically transmit the calibration data to the second computing device; and in response to determining to automatically transmit the calibration data to the second computing device, automatically transmit, via the network connection, the calibration data to the second computing device. Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 4 Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS AND REFERENCES (1) Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Guerrero et al. (US 2015/0341217 A1; published Nov. 26, 2015; “Guerrero”), Geaghan (US 2014/0168089 A1; published Jun. 19, 2014), Kang et al. (US 2014/0220937 A1; published Aug. 7, 2014; “Kang”), and Rajakarunanayake et al. (US 2008/0198781 A1; published Aug. 21, 2008; “Raja”). Final Act. 2-25. (2) Claims 2, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Guerrero, Geaghan, Kang, Raja, and Modai (US 9,088,542 B2; published Jul. 21, 2015). Final Act. 26-29. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 12, 24, and 25 In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the combination of Guerrero, Geaghan, Kang, and Raja teaches or suggests all of the limitations of Appellant’s claim 1 and similarly, Appellant’s claims 6 and 11. Final Act. 2-25. In particular, the Examiner finds Guerrero teaches or suggests most of the limitations of Appellant’s claim 1, including: (1) a storage device (id. at 3 (citing Guerrero ¶¶ 20, 34, Fig. 1)) and (2) a processor to: (i) access first location information representing a first location of the first computing device; (ii) access second location information representing a second location of the second computing device; (iii) compare the first and second locations; Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 5 (iv) determine whether the first computing device and the second computing device are associated via an ongoing communication session; (v) based on the comparison of the first and second locations and the determination of whether the first computing device and the second computing device are associated via the ongoing communication session, determine whether to automatically transmit the calibration data to the second computing device; and (vi)` in response to determining to automatically transmit the calibration data to the second computing device, automatically transmit . . . the calibration data to the second computing device. Id. at 3-5 (citing Guerrero ¶¶ 217-20, 32, 43, 44, 47). Guerrero teaches a method for the automatic configuration of portable terminals from central control unit (S), shown in Figure 1, or alternatively, from any portable terminal serving as a master T1, shown in Figure 2, based on respective geographic positions of these portable terminals, via wireless transmission means (e.g., NFC, GPS, GMS, WiFi, IEEE 802.11, Bluetooth) or wired transmission means or interfaces (e.g., Ethernet, USE ports, serial transmission). Guerrero ¶¶ 2, 4, 17-20, 34, 38, 40-47. Guerrero’s Figure 1 is reproduced below: Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 6 Guerrero’s Figure 1 depicts communication between central control unit S with portable terminals T1-T7 at different areas (A1, A2) for automatic configuration, where (1) portable terminal T1 is assigned by central control unit S to serve as a master to be cloned into remaining portable terminals T2-T4 at A1, or (2) portable terminal T7 is assigned by central control unit S to serve as a master to be cloned into remaining portable terminals T5-T6 at A2. Guerrero ¶¶ 65-69. Guerrero’s Figure 2 depicting an alternative embodiment without the use of central control unit S is reproduced below: Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 7 Guerrero’s Figure 2 depicts communication directly between portable terminals T1-T7 at different areas (A1, A2) for automatic configuration without the use of central control unit S, where (1) portable terminal T1 serves as a master to be cloned into one or more remaining portable terminals T2-T4 at A1 based on the geographical positions relative to master terminal T1, or (2) portable terminal T7 serves as a master to be cloned into one or more remaining portable terminals T5-T6 at A2 based on the geographical positions relative to master terminal T7. Guerrero ¶¶ 75-76. According to Guerrero, portable terminals can be any electronic device, including “laptop computers, PDAs, tablet computers, cell phones.” Guerrero ¶ 3. Automatic configuration refers to any operation of adjusting operation parameters or calibration and/or control parameters of portable terminals. Guerrero ¶¶ 4, 38. This way calibration data can be transferred from master terminal T1 to one or more portable terminals T2-T4, via wireless transmission means or wired interfaces, based on the geographical positions of one or more portable terminals T2-T4 relative to master terminal T1, shown in Figure 2. The Examiner then relies upon Geaghan for expressly teaching the storage and transmission of “calibration data of an electronic device” in the context of a digitizer system 100, shown in Figure 1-similar to Appellant’s claim 1-including digital pen (stylus) 120, display panel 115, and controller 130 provided with microprocessors and circuitry to control images, via RF link 135, and store calibration data and perform calibration in order to ensure correct orientation of digital pen 120 relative to display panel 115. Final Act. 5 (citing Geaghan ¶¶ 44, 122). Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 8 The Examiner also relies upon (1) Raja to establish the well-known use of “network interface to establish a network connection” between first and second computing device and (2) Kang to establish the automatic transmission of “calibration data” via the network connection in order to support the conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 5-6 (citing Kang ¶¶ 61, 76-78; Raja ¶¶ 10, 12). Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s reasons to combine the references. Instead, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings regarding Guerrero and presents several arguments against the application of Guerrero and Geaghan. First, Appellant contends neither Guerrero’s “central control unit (S),” shown in Figure 1, nor Guerrero’s master terminal T1 or T7, shown in Figure 2, can be considered the claimed “first computing device” provided with “processor” to “access first location information representing a first location of the first computing device” recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 2-3. According to Appellant, Guerrero’s “central control unit (S)” cannot determine its own geographical position but, instead, “determines the geographical positions of terminals T1-T7.” Appeal Br. 11. In other words, Appellant argues: Guerrero does not discuss the control unit S, management unit of the control unit S, or any other entity determining the location of the management unit or accessing “first location information representing a first location of the first computing device,” as recited in claim 1. Id. Second, Appellant acknowledges Guerrero’s master terminals T1, T7, shown in Figure 2, detect the geographical proximity between themselves Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 9 and slave portable terminals T2-T4, T5-T6 before transferring configuration parameters (e.g., calibration data) between (1) master terminals T1, T7 and (2) slave portable terminals T2-T4, T5-T6. Id. at 12 (citing Guerrero ¶¶ 76, 78-81). However, Appellant contends “Guerrero does not contemplate determining whether to automatically transmit calibration data based on a determination of whether first and second computing devices are associated with an ongoing communication session.” Id. Specifically, Appellant argues Guerrero’s “central control unit (S)” does not “determine whether the first computing device and the second computing devices are associated via an ongoing communication session” and “based on the comparison of the first and second locations and the determination of whether the first computing device and the second computing device are associated via the ongoing communication session, determine whether to automatically transmit the calibration data to the second computing device,” as recited in claim 1. Id. Third, Appellant contends neither Geaghan, Kang, nor Raja can remedy the noted deficiencies of Guerrero to achieve the subject matter of claim 1, “such as a processor to determine whether two portable terminals are associated with an ongoing communication session or determine whether to automatically transmit calibration data based on a determination of whether first and second computing devices are associated with an ongoing communication session.” Id. at 13. Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. Instead, we find the Examiner’s findings, including the Examiner’s Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 10 responses to Appellant’s contentions, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence on this record. Ans. 3-12. At the outset, we note claim terms, during examination, are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The term “first computing device” provided with “processor” to “access first location information representing a first location of the first computing device” recited in Appellant’s claim 1 can be broadly, but reasonably, interpreted to encompass either Guerrero’s “central control unit (S),” shown in Figure 1, or alternatively, Guerrero’s master terminal T1 or T7, shown in Figure 2, because either of Guerrero’s terminals can detect the geographical positions between first and second terminals, as recognized by the Examiner. Ans. 3-4 (citing Guerrero ¶¶ 3, 17-20). As shown in Guerrero’s Figure 2, master terminal T1 is configured to detect the condition of geographical proximity between master terminal T1 and one or more slave terminals T2-T4, i.e., “a situation in which the two portable terminals are geographically arranged at distance from each other that is [less] than or equal to a predetermined threshold distance” before cloning or transferring calibration parameters from master terminal T1 to one or more slave terminals T2-T4. Guerrero ¶¶ 24, 34. Similar to Guerrero, Geaghan also teaches calibrating a portable terminal, i.e., a digitizer system 10, shown in Figure 1-similar to Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 11 Appellant’s claim 1-including digital pen (stylus) 120, display panel 115, and controller 130 provided with microprocessors and circuitry to store calibration data and perform calibration in order to ensure correct orientation of digital pen 120 relative to display panel 115. Geaghan ¶¶ 1, 44, 113-114. According to Geaghan, “calibration data is computed by way of a processor [included in controller 130, shown in Figure 1], and such calibration data may then be outputted to another [2nd] computing device which may store such calibration data for future reference.” Geaghan ¶ 122. In other words, Geaghan’s controller 130 serves as Appellant’s claimed “first computing device” and is provided with a processor to store and perform calibration, and then transmit calibration data to the “second computing device,” via a network connection. Certainly, Geaghan’s controller 130-Appellant’s claimed “first computing device”- can transmit calibration data to the “second computing device,” via a network connection, based on, for example, the geographical positions between the “first computing device” and the “second computing device” as disclosed by Guerrero ¶¶ 3, 17-20, 34, 38, 40. As the Federal Circuit has stated: “where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.” In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961). Second, when Guerrero’s master terminal T1 (the claimed “first computing device”), shown in Figure 2, is configured to detect the condition of geographical proximity between master terminal T1 (the claimed “first Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 12 computing device”) and one or more slave terminals T2-T4 (the claimed “second computing device”) and transmit calibration data to the one or more slave terminals T2-T4 (the claimed “second computing device”), such a detection and transmission are well-known to have associated via an ongoing communication session in a manner recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Sharing or cloning configuration parameters and calibration data between terminals (the claimed “first” and “second computing device”) would be performed within a communication session, as evidenced, for example, in Kang ¶¶ 60, 76-78. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly disclosed in the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast, Appellant’s contentions rigidly focus on a narrow reading of Guerrero and Geaghan, without taking full account of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 13 “knowledge, creativity, and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Given the general knowledge of those skilled in the art and the teachings of Guerrero and Geaghan, we agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would understand that Guerrero’s master terminal T1 or T7, shown in Figure 2, would be able to (1) detect the geographical positions between first and second terminals, (2) determine if the first and second terminals are associated via an ongoing communication session, and (3) automatically transmit calibration data to the second terminal, via a network connection in the manner recited in claim 1. For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 and similarly, claims 6 and 11 and of their dependent claims 3-5, 7, 9, 13, and 14, which are not argued separately. Claims 8 and 12 Claim 8 depends from claim 7 (which depends from claim 6) and further recites that the processor is to remove the calibration data of the second electronic device and the pairing information in response to detecting a change to the location of the second computing device. Alternatively, claim 12 depends from claim 11, and further recites that the processor is to remove the calibration data of the second electronic device in response to detecting the second computing device is at a different location than the first computing device. Appellant acknowledges Guerrero teaches updating the calibration data of the second electronic device. Appeal Br. 17 (citing Guerrero ¶ 51). However, Appellant argues Guerrero’s updating does not involve removing Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 14 the calibration data and “the pairing information in response to detecting a change to the location of the second computing device” recited in claim 8, or “in response to detecting the second computing device is at a different location than the first computing device” recited in claim 12. Id. 18. We do not agree with Appellant. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, updating may involve removing the calibration data and any pairing information, i.e., replacing old data with new. Ans. 17-18 (citing Guerrero ¶ 51). Moreover, a person skilled in the art would have the necessary knowledge, creativity, and common sense to remove the calibration data and any pairing information as soon as the pairing is no longer available. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 12. Claims 2, 10, and 15 Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites that the processor determines whether to automatically transmit the calibration data to the second computing device based on whether the communication session includes a virtual meeting session or a wireless screen sharing session. Appellant argues Modai does not teach or suggest “determin[ing] whether to transmit configuration data based on whether a communication session includes a virtual meeting session or a wireless screen-sharing session.” Appeal Br. 21. We disagree and adopt the Examiner’s responses on pages 18-19 of the Examiner’s Answer. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2, 10, and 15 as obvious over Guerrero, Geaghan, Kang, Raja, and Modai. Appeal 2021-001080 Application 16/066,413 15 CONCLUSION On this record, Appellant does not show the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 as obvious over Guerrero, Geaghan, Kang, and Raja; and (2) claims 2, 10, and 15 as obvious over Guerrero, Geaghan, Kang, Raja, and Modai. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-9, 11-14 103 Guerrero, Geaghan, Kang, Raja 1, 3-9, 11- 14 2, 10, 15 103 Guerrero, Geaghan, Kang, Raja, Modai 2, 10, 15 Overall Outcome 1-15 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED