Ex Parte Hunleth et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 13, 201210768432 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation