Ex Parte CortrightDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 201712505460 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/505,460 07/17/2009 David Stanning Cortright 14917.1469USC1 2226 27488 7590 11/15/2017 MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) P.O. BOX 2903 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903 EXAMINER HO, RUAY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2017 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): US PT027488 @ merchantgould .com u sdocket @ micro soft .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID STANNING CORTRIGHT Appeal 2015-000402 Application 12/505,460 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 6—13, 15—17, 19, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation (App. Br. 2). 2 Claims 4, 5, 14, and 18 were objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims {see Ans. 6). Appeal 2015-000402 Application 12/505,460 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to a system and process for graphically representing sequential time-dependent information or data objects on a display device (Spec. 27—29). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A computer-readable storage device encoding computer executable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, performs a method for displaying time- dependent data objects on a display device, the method comprising: providing a dynamic display area represented by a dynamic time strip, the dynamic time strip including a plurality of indications of different times of a given day and an indicator associated with a current time of the given day, wherein the plurality of indications of the different times of the given day are displayed along a length of the dynamic time strip, and wherein a position of the indicator is automatically updated based on a current time of the given day; populating the dynamic time strip with one or more graphically represented data objects, wherein each of the one or more graphically represented data objects is positioned along the dynamic time strip relative to at least one associated time; and updating the position of at least one of the one or more graphically represented data objects within the dynamic time strip based on received input that corresponds to a received period of time of the given day. Claims 1—3, 6—13, 15—17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crow (US 6,262,724 Bl; July 17, 2001) and Mansour (US 6,034,683; Mar. 7, 2000) (see Ans. 2—6). 2 Appeal 2015-000402 Application 12/505,460 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions as highlighted below. Claim 1 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Crow as disclosing all the recited elements except for “a plurality of indications of different times of a given day and an indicator associated with a current time of the given day,” for which the Examiner relies on Mansour (Ans. 2-4). The Examiner finds Figure 5B and the disclosure of Crow in columns 12 and 13 provides a dynamic time strip, and the disclosure of Mansour in columns 3 and 6 provides a moving timeline including a plurality of indications of different times and the current time (Ans. 2—3). The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Crow with Mansour in order to enhance the time display functions of Crow (Ans. 4). Appellant contends Crow does not disclose “an indicator associated with the current time of day” or “updating the position of any indicator based on the current time a given day” (App. Br. 9). Appellant argues Crow shows the remaining play time of the media being played without updating anything based on the current time of a given day (App. Br. 10-12). With respect to Mansour, Appellant contends the disclosed “updating” takes place with respect to “the position of the time line and not the indicator” (App. Br. 12), and thus, teaches away from the disputed claim limitation which allows the user to “review or preview the state of the time strip either in the past or future” (App. Br. 13). Appellant further argues modifying Mansour with 3 Appeal 2015-000402 Application 12/505,460 Crow’s drawer or timeline would render the combination inoperable (App. Br. 13-14). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Appellant’s contentions focus on the references separately, whereas the proposed rejection is based on the combination of Crow and Mansour. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As found by the Examiner (Ans. 7), Mansour discloses “an indicator associated with a current time of the [given] day,” which would have suggested providing the claimed representation for different times of a given day (Ans. 7 (citing Mansour col. 3,11. 61—62; col. 6,11. 30-34)). The Examiner specifically explains Mansour, and not Crow, was cited for disclosing “[the] position of the indicator is automatically updated” (Ans. 7—8). According to the Examiner, Crow was cited for disclosing “an automatic update function for the time-based media items display” (Ans. 8). Consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion because the Examiner has identified (Ans. 7—8) improvements made by the combination to the user interface for controlling of time-based media files of Crow where the time strip includes an indicator associated with a current time of the given day. Indeed, the Supreme Court has indicated that: [It is error to] assum[e] that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem. . . . Common sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. 4 Appeal 2015-000402 Application 12/505,460 KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (citation omitted). Therefore, we find that the Examiner has articulated how the claimed features are met by the proposed combination of the reference teachings with some rational underpinning. See id. at 418. We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that “Mansour teaches away from automatically ‘updating the position of the indicator based on a current time of day’ because Mansour teaches moving the time line and keeping a time pointer stationary” (App. Br. 13). We agree with the Examiner that a discussion of the added features of play, stop, and pause, which do not constitute any of the recited features, is not sufficient to support that Mansour teaches away (see Ans. 9). A teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Mansour teaches it was known in the art for displaying schedule representation that include a display of current day as well as other days (see col. 3,11. 61—62; col. 6,11. 30-34; Fig. 2,), which enhances the time display functions of Crow. Appellant does not identify any disclosure in Mansour that discredits the enhanced interface or otherwise would discourage an ordinarily skilled artisan from considering and adapting its teachings for use with prior art directed to user interface for processing time-based media files, such as Crow. Additionally, Appellant provides no persuasive argument or evidence that modifying Crow with automatically updating the position of the indicator, as taught by Mansour, was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419). 5 Appeal 2015-000402 Application 12/505,460 With respect to Appellant’s contention that the combination results in an inoperable device or method (App. Br. 13), we are similarly unpersuaded. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Here, the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Crow with Mansour teaches or suggests the disputed features of claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, independent claims 10 and 16, and dependent claims 6—9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20, which are argued based on the same reasons stated in arguing the patentability of claim 1 (see App. Br. 15). Claim 2 Appellants contend the combination of Crow and Mansour is silent as to the recited limitation of “a time strip that automatically generates an alert” recited in claim 2 (App. Br. 15). The Examiner correctly found this limitation is disclosed by Crow’s displaying the information in the drawer as an “alert” which may include data information and warning (Ans. 4 (citing Crow col. 14,1. 66-col. 15,1. 19)). For the same reasons stated for claim 1 and based on the Examiner’s findings and conclusion (see Ans. 4), we are unpersuaded of Examiner error, and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection 6 Appeal 2015-000402 Application 12/505,460 of claim 2, as well as claims 3 and 13 not argued separately, over the combination of Crow and Mansour. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—3, 6—13, 15—17, 19, and 20 is 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation