Ex Parte Greisson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 18, 201613405660 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/405,660 02/27/2012 95866 7590 07/20/2016 Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P,L, 551 NW 77th street Suite 111 Boca Raton, FL 33487 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Erik Artur Greis son 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. 44333-US-PAT 8450 EXAMINER STEPP JONES, SHAWNA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/20/2016 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): ptoboca@fggbb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIK ARTUR GREISSON and DANIEL TOBIAS RYDENHAG Appeal2014-009640 Application 13/405,660 Technology Center 2600 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, HUNG H. BUI, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL .6. .... ,1 .... ,....,-TTr'l.r-"\l\-1,....Al/'\.r'" , .. C- "1 • ,• Appeuants' appeal unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me rma1 reJecuon of claims 1 and 3-21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claim 2 is cancelled. (Amendment and Response 2 (Nov. 26, 2013).) We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosed invention "relates to communication devices, including but not limited to portable communication devices having touch- 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Research In Motion Limited. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2014-009640 Application 13/405,660 sensitive displays." (Spec. if 1.) Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. An apparatus comprising: a wireless transceiver; a touch-screen display; a control circuit operably coupled to the touch-screen display and the wireless transceiver and configured to: - provide on a touch-screen display an incoming-call response-initiation zone in response to an incoming call in combination with a separate space that presents information corresponding to a calling party; in response to at least one user interaction with the incoming-call response-initiation zone, visually subdue at least some imagery presented on the touch-screen display in the separate space; - take an incoming-call processing action in response to detecting a user's swipe-based gesture that begins in the incoming-call response-initiation zone. Claims 1, 3---6, and 8-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as being unpatentable over Tsuei (EP 2 120 436 Al, publ. Nov. 18, 2009) and Huang et al. (US 2012/0182234 Al 3, publ. July 19, 2012) (hereinafter "Huang"). (See Final Act. 2---6.) 2 The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as in force prior to the effective date of the America Invents Act of 2011. 3 In the Final Office Action the Examiner incorrectly identifies Huang as US 2012/0019562 Al, which is the designation of a patent application publication to Park et al. (See Final Act 2.) Based on the detailed articulation of the rejections, we conclude the rejections are over Huang, and not Park et al. (See Final Act. 3 (citing Huang if 30).) We conclude this misidentification of the reference is a typographical error that does not prejudice Appellants' ability to respond to the ground of rejection (see, e.g., App. Br. 9, n. 2). 2 Appeal2014-009640 Application 13/405,660 Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuei, Huang, and Waters et al. (US 2011/0254792 Al, publ. Oct. 30, 2011) (hereinafter "Waters"). (See Final Act. 6-7.) Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App. Br." filed May 12, 2014; "Reply Br." filed Sept. 8, 2014) and the Specification ("Spec." filed Feb. 27, 2012) for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Dec. 17, 2013) and Answer ("Ans." mailed July 7, 2014) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). ISSUE Based on Appellants' arguments, we discuss the appeal by referring to claim 1. The issue presented by Appellants' contentions is whether the Examiner erred in finding Huang, when combined with Tsuei, teaches "in response to at least one user interaction ... visually subduing at least some imagery presented on the touch-screen display" (the "subduing limitation"), as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS The Examiner relies on Huang as teaching the subduing limitation. (Final Act. 2 (citing Huang i-f 30); Ans. 2 (additionally citing Huang Figs. 5C-D).) Appellants contend as follows: Huang teaches exactly the opposite [of the subduing limitation]. Referring to Huang's figures 5A through 5D ... , Huang teaches 3 Appeal2014-009640 Application 13/405,660 making, at most, two visual changes to the displayed imagery. First, as shown in figure 5C, Huang temporarily makes the thumbnail image larger. Second, and as also shown in figure 5C, Huang makes a voice-phone icon symbol (denoted by reference numeral 512 in figure 5A) change from "a hidden or vague" state to a more prominently-visible state. (App. Br. 11.) Appellants elaborate as follows: Huang teaches changing the appearance of displayed content by increasing the size of that content or otherwise making that content less hidden or vague, both of these examples of change being the opposite of "visually subduing." .... Huang, does not illustrate in FIGS. 5C and 5D reducing the size of icons or otherwise visually subduing them but rather the opposite. (Reply Br. 2.) We agree with the Examiner. During prosecution, the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), without importing limitations into the claims from the Specification, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, in an open-ended claim, e.g., one using the transitional term "comprising," "the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim." Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). We accept, arguendo, Appellants' contention that "visually subdue" means "lowered in intensity or strength; reduced in fullness of tone, as a color or voice; muted: subdued light." (App. Br. 10 (quoting http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ subdued); accord Spec. i-f 37.) We conclude that a reduction in size is encompassed by this claim construction. Huang teaches that in response to an incoming call a caller's picture may be shown in a moveable object 510 on a touch-screen display of an 4 Appeal2014-009640 Application 13/405,660 electronic device 100 (Huang if 30, Fig. 5A). Huang further teaches that when the user drags the moveable object 510 to accept a call, the moveable object 510 and picture are first increased in size (id. Figs. 5B-C), then decreased in size (id. Fig. 5D), i.e., the moveable object and picture are first visually emphasized and then "visually subdue[ ed]" (claim 1 ). It is undisputed that the user's action of accepting a call is encompassed by "in response to at least one user interaction," as recited in claim 1. We conclude that Huang's emphasized moveable object and picture (id. Fig. 5C) are encompassed by the broadest reasonable interpretation of "at least some imagery presented on the touch-screen display," as recited in claim 1 and that the reduction in size of the emphasized moveable object and picture (id. Fig. 5D) is encompassed by "visually subduing at least some imagery presented on the touch-screen display," as recited in claim 1. We find nothing in claim 1 that precludes first emphasizing an image and then subduing the emphasized imagery from coming within the ambit of claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 14, 15, and 16, which are argued together with claim 1 (see App. Br. 13); and claims 3-13 and 17-21, which variously depend from claims 1, 15, and 16 and were not separately argued with particularity (see id.). DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3-21 is affirmed. 5 Appeal2014-009640 Application 13/405,660 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). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation