Ex Parte Mistry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

14015873 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

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.
14/015,873 08/30/2013 Pranav Mistry 082499.0105 2124
121588 7590 06/02/2017
Baker Botts L.L.P./Samsung
2001 Ross Avenue
SUITE 700
Dallas, TX 75201
EXAMINER
HIGGS, STELLA EUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
PTOmaill @bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRANAV MISTRY, LINING YAO, JOHN SNAVELY,
EVA-MARIA OFFENBERG, LINK CHUN HUANG, and CATHY KIM
Appeal 2016-0087071
Application 14/015,873
Technology Center 2100
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JUSTIN BUSCH, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—30, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Company, Ltd. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2016-008707
Application 14/015,873
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention “generally relates to an [sic] wearable device.”
(Specification (filed August 30, 2013) (“Spec.”) 12.) Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced below (with minor reformatting and
corrections):
1. An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory coupled to the processors comprising
instructions executable by the processors, the processors
being operable when executing the instructions to:
present on a display of the apparatus a first screen
that corresponds to a first mode of the apparatus, the first
screen being in a first level of a graphical user interface
(GUI) hierarchy and occupying a substantial portion of the
display when presented, the first level of the GUI
hierarchy comprising:
a first plurality of screens accessible in a first
direction from a home screen, each of the first
plurality of screens corresponding to a fixed mode
of the apparatus, the first plurality of screen[s]
always available for selection within the first level
of the GUI hierarchy corresponding to the first
mode;
a second plurality of screens accessible in a
second direction from the home screen, each of the
second plurality of screens corresponding to a
variable contextual mode of the apparatus, the
particular second plurality of screens that are
available for selection within the first level of the
GUI hierarchy varying based on a current context of
the apparatus; and
the home screen, the home screen separating
the first plurality of screens from the second
2
Appeal 2016-008707
Application 14/015,873
plurality of screens such that any navigation
between the first plurality of screens and the second
plurality of screens passes through the home screen;
in response to a transition event at the first screen,
present a second screen that corresponds to a second mode
of the apparatus, the second screen being in the first level
of the GUI hierarchy and occupying the substantial portion
of the display when presented;
in response to a selection event at the first screen,
present a third screen that corresponds to a first function
of the first mode of the apparatus, the third screen being in
a second level of the GUI hierarchy and occupying the
substantial portion of the display when presented; and
in response to a transition event at the third screen,
present a fourth screen that corresponds to a second
function of the first mode of the apparatus, the fourth
screen being in the second level of the GUI hierarchy and
occupying the substantial portion of the display when
presented.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Narayanaswami US 6,556,222 B1 Apr. 29, 2003
Howard et al.
(“Howard”) US 2004/0130581 Al July 8, 2004
Kim US 2004/0209642 Al Oct. 21,2004
Rosenthal US 2005/0137470 Al June 23, 2005
Kim et al.
(“Kim ’042”) US 2007/0211042 Al Sep. 13, 2007
Lyons et al.
(“Lvons”) US 2009/0059730 Al Mar. 5, 2009
3
Appeal 2016-008707
Application 14/015,873
Mooring et al.
(“Mooring”)
Pozzo Di Borgo et al.
(“Pozzo Di Borgo”)
US 8,289,162 B2
US 2013/0142016 Al
Oct. 16, 2012
June 6, 2013
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 23, 24, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howard, in view of Pozzo Di Borgo,
and further in view of Lyons. (See Final Office Action (mailed May 29,
2015) (“Final Act.”) 3-8.)
Claims 3—5, 7, 14—16, 18, 25—27, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howard, in view of Pozzo Di
Borgo and Lyons, and further in view of Rosenthal and Kim ’042. (See
Final Act. 8—11.)
Claims 6, 17, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Howard, in view of Pozzo Di Borgo, Lyons, Rosenthal,
and Kim ’042, and further in view of Mooring. (See Final Act. 11—12.)
Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Howard, in view of Pozzo Di Borgo, Lyons,
Rosenthal, and Kim ’042, and further in view of Narayanaswami. (See Final
Act. 12-13.)
Claims 10, 11,21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Howard, in view of Pozzo Di Borgo and Lyons, and
further in view of Kim. (See Final Act. 13—14.)
4
Appeal 2016-008707
Application 14/015,873
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—30.
“the first plurality of screen[s] always available for selection, ”
“the particular second plurality of screens that are available for
selection . . . based on a current context of the apparatus, ” and
“the home screen separating the first plurality of screens from
the second plurality of screens ”
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds Figure 6 and paragraphs
210 through 213 and 220 through 225 of Pozzo Di Borgo teach or suggest
“the home screen . . .” limitation. (Final Act. 7.) Appellants contend the
Examiner erred because “Pozzo Di Borgo does not disclose any such home
screen even under the Office’s interpretation.” (App. Br. 10.) Specifically,
Appellants contend that the first plurality of screens must always be
available for selection and the availability for selection of the second
plurality of screens must be based on a current context of the apparatus. {Id.
at 9-10.) In other words, Appellants are also contending that the cited
references do not teach or suggest “the first plurality of screen always
available for selection” and “the particular second plurality of screens that
are available for selection . . . based on a current context of the apparatus”
limitations.
“the home screen separating the first plurality of screens
from the second plurality of screens”
We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding this limitation and
we adopt, as our own, the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner,
regarding this issue, in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act.
5
Appeal 2016-008707
Application 14/015,873
7) and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 14—17). Figure 6 of Pozzo Di
Borgo is reproduced below.
rv> 210
i;
"w
21
Fig. 6
Figure 6 “illustrates schematically the virtual arrangement of different
screens in the watch’s menu.” (Pozzo Di Borgo 138.) According to the
Examiner:
home screen, 23, separates a first plurality of screens (220-225)
navigable in the x direction from the home screen from a second
plurality of screens (210—213) navigable in the y direction from
the home screen. Accordingly, since navigation to the screens of
column 21 and the screens of row 22 are navigable from screen
23, screen 23 is interpreted as reading upon a “homescreen” as
claimed by the Application. . . .
(Final Act. 7, emphasis omitted.) According to the Examiner, the
“‘homescreens’ taught in Pozzo Di Borgo and Lyons both teach separating a
6
Appeal 2016-008707
Application 14/015,873
first plurality of screens in the vertical direction from a second plurality of
screens in the horizontal direction such that navigation between the first
plurality of screens and the second plurality of screens passes through the
home screen.” (Ans. 16, emphasis added.) While Appellants contend that
“Pozzo Di Borgo does not disclose any such home screen even under the
Office’s interpretation,” (App. Br. 10), Appellants do not explain how the
home screen is missing in Pozzo Di Borgo. We note that “the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”
In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appellants have not
persuaded us of Examiner error.
“the particular second plurality of screens that are
available for selection . . . based on a current context of the apparatus”
The Examiner finds that the combination of Pozzo Di Borgo and
Lyons teaches or suggests this limitation. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings regarding this limitation and we adopt, as our own, the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner, regarding this issue, in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6—7) and the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. (Ans. 16—18.) While Appellants appear to contend that the
combination fails to teach or suggest “the second plurality of screens [whose
availability for selection varies based on a current context of the apparatus]”
(App. Br. 9, emphasis omitted), Appellants do not rebut the Examiner’s
detailed findings nor do Appellants offer substantive arguments why this
7
Appeal 2016-008707
Application 14/015,873
limitation is missing. In reLovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Appellants have,
therefore, not persuaded us of Examiner error.
“the first plurality of screen^] always available for selection”
Appellants contend that the first plurality of screens are not always
available for selection because “Lyons says nothing about whether [a watch
mode and/or calendar mode] are always available to a user [and] even if the
Office’s characterization of Lyons is correct, Lyons would still merely
disclose modes that are available to a user, not a plurality of screens that are
always available for selection.'’'’ (App. Br. 10; Reply 3 4.) We agree with
the Examiner’s findings regarding this limitation and we adopt, as our own,
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, regarding this issue, in
the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6—7) and the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 16—18). For example, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that:
Lyons further teaches that the device can revert and/or access the
watch mode regardless of what mode it is in ([see,] e.g. [,] [0043],
[0045]). Accordingly, the ability to revert and/or access the
watch mode, essentially as a default mode, from any other mode
can be reasonably interpreted that the watch mode is “always”
accessible as a type of default mode. Furthermore, the apparatus
of Lyons is a wearable watch wherein a skilled artisan would
have recognized that time-related functionalities, such as the
watch mode taught in Lyons, would obviously always be
accessible to perform its basic operation of being a watch.
(Ans. 17—18, emphasis added.) Figure 8 of Lyons is reproduced below.
8
Appeal 2016-008707
Application 14/015,873
Figure 8 “is a diagrammatic view illustrating use of the user interface or
input device of the present invention to scroll through menus displayed by
the display of the watch device.” (Lyons 114.) We agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
that the screens shown above the watch in Figure 8 would always be
available to a user in watch mode. Moreover, if the watch mode is always
accessible to the user, the plurality of screens associated with the watch
mode would obviously, if not necessarily, be always available to a user in
watch mode. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error.
Rationales for Combination
The Examiner finds that:
Accordingly, the combination of Pozzo Di Borgo in view of
Lyons teach[es] the recited limitation. It would have been
obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
invention, to modify Pozzo Di Borgo in view of Lyons in order
to allow quick user interaction on small screen devices while
conserving energy consumption (e.g.[,] see [0042] of Lyons).
9
Appeal 2016-008707
Application 14/015,873
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Howard in
view of Pozzo Di Borgo-Lyons because of the overlapping
subject matter and the teaching from Pozzo Di Borgo-Lyons to
quickly and easily navigate to a plurality of different operation
screens on a small screen display (e.g. [,] see [0030] of Pozzo Di
Borgo and [0003] of Lyons).
(Final Act. 6—7, original emphasis omitted, italics added.) The Examiner
further finds that:
Other rationales for supporting the conclusion of obviousness
include, applying known techniques to improve similar devices,
methods, or products in the same way. It would have been
obvious to use the known techniques of Lyons of providing both
always available modes/screens and selectively available
modes/screens based on the context of the watch device to
improve the similar watch device of Pozzo Di Borgo in the same
way as Lyons’ watch device is improved (e.g.[,] see KSR Int’l
Co. v. Telef[le]x Inc.).
(Ans. 20.) Appellants contend that the Examiner’s “motivation for
combining Lyons with Pozzo-Di-Borgo does not support the Office’s
rejection” because the Examiner “does not explain how conserving power
through selective operation of GPS components would motivate one of
ordinary skill to combine any screen in the watch or calendar modes of
Lyons with the screens of Pozzo-Di-Borgo. . . .” (App. Br. 12; Reply 5.) We
agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not explain sufficiently why
“conserving power through selective operation of GPS components would
motivate one of ordinary skill to combine” the references. However, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that “it would have been obvious for a
person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify
Pozzo Di Borgo in view of Lyons in order to allow quick user interaction on
small screen devices.” (Final Act. 7—8, original emphasis omitted, italics
added.) Appellants do not address this rationale in their Appeal Brief but
10
Appeal 2016-008707
Application 14/015,873
instead address it in their Reply Brief contending that this is a “new
obviousness rationale.” Appellants’ contention regarding this rationale is a
new argument that is raised in reply and is deemed waived. See In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first
raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima,
93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that
arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief, will not
be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause
explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal
Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative)
(“[pjroperly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a
belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a
showing of good cause.”); see also 37 C.F.R. 41.41(b)(2).
We also agree with the Examiner’s additional rationale (Ans. 20
(discussing obvious to use known techniques to improve similar devices or
methods when yielding no more than predictable results)) for combining the
cited references. Appellants’ assertion that “the Office has not shown that
‘easily identify and accessing’ screens would then lead one of ordinary skill
to arrange the time screens of Lyons and the screens of Pozzo Di Borgo in
the specific way required by the claims” (Reply 7) is mere attorney
argument and a conclusory statement, which is unsupported by factual
evidence, and, thus is entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). Importantly, we find that the Examiner has “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellants’
11
Appeal 2016-008707
Application 14/015,873
further contention that the Examiner “does not address the fact that Lyons
and Pozzo Di Borgo organize screens according to their purpose rather than
their availability,” (Reply 7) is a new argument that is raised in reply and is
deemed waived. 37 C.F.R. 41.41(b)(2). Accordingly, Appellants have not
persuaded us of Examiner error.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1 and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1.
Independent claims 12, 23, and 30 recite similar limitations and Appellants’
do not make separate arguments for these claims (App. Br. 7—13).
Therefore, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 12, 23,
and 30 and of claims 2—11, 13—22, and 24—29, which depend from either
claim 1, 12, or 23, and are not argued separately (App. Br. 14).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—30 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
12