Ex Parte Hunleth et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 13, 2012

10768432 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FRANK A. HUNLETH, NEGAR MOSHIRI,
WILLIAM J. NAPIER, DANIEL S. SIMPKINS,
and FRANK J. WROBLEWSKI
___________

Appeal 2010-000499
Application 10/768,432
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JENNIFER S. BISK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000499
Application 10/768,432

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13-21, 23-30, 32, 33, and 47-54. Claims 2, 3, 6-9, 11, 12,
22, 31 and 34-46 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates a control framework for organizing,
selecting, and launching media items including organizing the media items,
pointing to one of the media items, and selecting one of different semantic
levels associated with the one of the media items. (Spec. ¶ [0011].)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A control framework for organizing, selecting and
launching media items comprising:
means for organizing said media items which are represented
by corresponding images at a current semantic level;
means for pointing to one of said media items represented by a
first image, wherein said means for pointing to one of said media
items includes a three dimensional (3D) pointer which generates a
cursor on a display screen, a position of said cursor being based on
movement of said 3D pointer;
means for selecting said first image for display at a different
semantic level; and
means for transitioning from (a) the current semantic level, at
which said first image is displayed together with other images of said
media items, to (b) said different semantic level, at which said first
image is displayed without said other images of said media items, by
simultaneously changing a size of said first image and translating said
first image from a first location at said current semantic level to a
second location at said different semantic level.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13-21, 23-27, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 47-54 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Daily (U.S. Patent
Appeal 2010-000499
Application 10/768,432

3
Application Publication No. 2004/0123320 A1; June 24, 2004), Duarte (U.S.
Patent No. 7,093,201 B2; Aug. 15, 2006) and Twerdahl (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2004/0221243 A1; Nov. 4, 2004).
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Daily, Duarte, Twerdahl, and Butler (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,199; Nov.
28, 2000).

ANALYSIS
Improper Final Office Action
Initially, we note Appellants’ discussion that the finality of the
previous Office action is improper. (App. Br. 2-4.) Because the
prematureness of a final rejection is directed towards a petitionable matter
and not an appealable matter, we will not address this issue. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.181; MPEP §§ 706.07(c), 1002.02(c) (8th ed. 2001, rev. 2010).

§103 Rejection – Daily, Duarte, and Twerdahl
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 5-9; see also
Reply Br. 2-3) that the combination Daily, Duarte, and Twerdahl would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the disputed
limitation “translating said first image from a first location at said current
semantic level to a second location at said different semantic level.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Daily does not disclose a
means for transitioning from (a) the current semantic
level, at which said first image is displayed together with other
images of said media items, to (b) said different semantic level,
at which said first image is displayed without said other images
of said media items, by simultaneously changing a size of said
first image and translating said first image from a first location
Appeal 2010-000499
Application 10/768,432

4
at said current semantic level to a second location at said
different semantic level.
(Ans. 4.) Therefore, the Examiner relied on Duarte for teaching a
highlighted selected icon 101 (i.e., a camera icon) for a photograph
subheading and displaying its graphical indication in the preview area 103
(Ans. 4-5, 19-20; Duarte, col. 8, ll. 24-38; Fig. 11) and relied on Twerdahl
for teaching a second level menu including second level menu items
associated with a first level menu item, such that the second level menu
items replace the first level menu items (Ans. 5, 23-24; Twerdahl, ¶ [0020];
Figs. 2-3.) The Examiner concluded that:
It would have been obvious . . . to substitute the
interactive guide providing optional support for a preliminary
selection as taught by Daily with the curved-listing file . . . with
the transitioning technique of the radial menu as taught by
Twerdahl to provide the benefit of viewing more information
based on the curved hierarchy structure and providing a
compact menu format optimized for electronic devices with
smaller screens.
(Ans. 5-6 (citations omitted).) We agree with the Examiner.
Duarte relates to “an application chooser format for a data processing
device” (col. 1, ll. 7-8) in particular, “a curved-listing file hierarchy and a
preview window for displaying identifiers and preview information” (col. 1,
ll. 53-55) such that “relatively more viewable information will fit within the
curved hierarchy 100 than with a standard file hierarchy” (col. 8, ll. 40-42).
Figure 11 of Duarte illustrates one embodiment of a curved-listing file
hierarchy 100, including “the selected icon 101 (i.e., a camera icon) for a
photograph subheading [that] is highlighted, making it stand out from the
other icons.” (Col. 8, ll. 27-30.) Therefore, Duarte teaches the limitation
“(a) the current semantic level.” Duarte also explains that “[a]s the user
Appeal 2010-000499
Application 10/768,432

5
scrolls through the loop menu 100, other icons may become similarly
highlighted” (col. 8, ll. 30-31; Fig. 11) and that “a highlight region
(represented by dotted line 102) remains in a consistent area on the display
and the icons on the loop menu move through that region” (col. 8, ll. 31-34;
Fig. 11). In other words, when the camera icon of Duarte is scrolled from
the loop menu 100 and becomes the selected icon 101, the camera icon
increases in size as the icon is scrolled into the highlight region 102. (See
col. 8, ll. 31-34; Fig. 11.) Therefore, Duarte teaches the limitation “by
simultaneously changing a size of said first image and translating said first
image from a first location at said current semantic level to a second location
at said different semantic level.” Duarte also explains that “the preview
area 103 may contain a graphical indication of the content located within the
particular subheading” and thus, teaches the limitation “(b) said different
semantic level.” (Col. 8, ll. 36-38.)
Twerdahl relates to “a graphical user interface for use in a handheld
computing device” (¶ [0003]) including a compact menu format (¶ [0006]).
Figure 2 of Twerdahl illustrates a first level radial menu 200 presented on a
display screen 120 that includes a set of first level menu items 202-16 in a
circumferential arrangement around a first central object 218 (i.e., the
claimed “first image”). (¶ [0017].) Therefore, Twerdahl teaches the
limitation “first image is displayed together with other images of said media
items” for the first level menu. Figure 3 of Twerdahl illustrates a “second
level menu [that] comprises a plurality of second level menu items
associated with the selected first level menu item” such that the “second
level menu items replace the first level menu items in the circumferential
arrangement about the central object.” (¶ [0020].) In addition, “[t]he second
Appeal 2010-000499
Application 10/768,432

6
central object 318 can be the same as the first central object 218.” (Id.)
Therefore, Twerdahl teaches the limitation “at which said first image is
displayed without said other images of said media items” from the first level
menu.
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have recognized that incorporating the curved hierarchy 100 of Duarte and
the first and second level radial menus of Twerdahl with the interactive
television program selection guide of Daily (Fig. 1A) would improve Daily
by providing the advantage of displaying more graphical icons on a screen.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Accordingly,
we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5-6) that modifying Daily to include the
curved hierarchy 100 of Duarte and the first and second level radial menus
of Twerdahl would have been obvious.
Appellants argue that “Duarte does not teach or suggest changing ‘the
location of the first image . . . such that the first image translates from a first
location at the current semantic level to a second location at the different
semantic level.’” (App. Br. 6.) Similarly, Appellants argue that “Duarte
does not teach or suggest ‘simultaneously changing a size of said first
image and translating said first image from a first location at said current
semantic level to a second location at said different semantic level.’” (Reply
Br. 3.) However as discussed previously, Duarte explains that when the
camera icon of Duarte is scrolled from the loop menu 100 and becomes the
selected icon 101, the camera icon increases in size as the icon is scrolled
into the highlight region 102 and thus, Duarte teaches “simultaneously
changing a size of said first image and translating said first image.” Also
discussed previously, selection of the camera icon as the selected icon 101
Appeal 2010-000499
Application 10/768,432

7
corresponds to the claimed “(a) the current semantic level” and the
associated preview area 103 corresponds to the claimed “(b) said different
semantic level.”
Appellants also argue that:
asserting arguendo that the central object 218 corresponds to
the claimed first image as asserted by the Final Office Action
and the central object 218 is identical to the central object 318
in Twerdahl, activating the central object 218 fails to generate
the second level menu, which is different from the claims.
(App. Br. 8.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Twerdahl expressly states
that the “second level menu [300] comprises a plurality of second level
menu items associated with the selected first level menu item, and the
second level menu items [302-316] replace the first level menu items in the
circumferential arrangement about the central object.” (¶ [0020].)
Appellants further argue that “[t]his paragraph [0020] of Twerdahl is
neither found in the Provisional Application from which Twerdahl claims
priority nor founds any support in the Provisional Application” and thus,
“this paragraph is not prior art.” (Reply Br. 4.) Contrary to Appellants’
arguments, page 3, lines 6-18, of Provisional Application No. 60/467,164
provides support for paragraph [0020] of Twerdahl.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Daily,
Duarte, and Twerdahl would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitation “translating said first image from a first
location at said current semantic level to a second location at said different
semantic level.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 4, 5, 47, and 48 depend from claim 1, and
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
Appeal 2010-000499
Application 10/768,432

8
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 47, and 48
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claims 10, 21, 53, and 54 recite limitations similar to
those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have
not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 10, 21, 53, and 54, as well as claims 13-20,
23-27, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 49-52, which depend from claims 10 and 21, for
the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

§103 Rejection – Daily, Duarte, Twerdahl, and Butler
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 28 separately (App. Br. 10), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent claims are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants summarily alleges that “the
rejection of dependent Claim 28 is improper for the reasons discussed above
with regard to independent Claim 53.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, which recites
limitations similar to claim 53. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13-21, 23-30, 32,
33, and 47-54 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).
Appeal 2010-000499
Application 10/768,432

9

AFFIRMED

babc