Alexis Tamas et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

13937608 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2020)

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.
13/937,608 07/09/2013 Alexis Tamas 15755A-000005-US-DVA 1065
27572 7590 01/03/2020
Harness Dickey (Troy)
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
JIANG, HAIMEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2020 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):
sto-ptomail@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEXIS TAMAS and AMAURY GRIMBERT

Appeal 2018-007687
Application 13/937,608
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16. See Appeal Br. 8–12; Non-final
Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “OF3FT.”
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-007687
Application 13/937,608

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
APPELLANT’S INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to an “electronic device [that] includes a
touchscreen and . . . divides the display into . . . an informational display
zone and a command display zone.” Spec., abst. Claim 1 is reproduced,
below, with emphasis on a disputed limitation (see infra).
1. An electronic device comprising:
a touchscreen; and
an electrical circuit that controls a display of the touchscreen
and detects user contact with a surface of the touchscreen,
wherein:
the electrical circuit generates a user interface on said display
and wherein the user interface supports two views, a mosaic
view and a site navigation view, alternately selectable by the
user in manipulating the touchscreen; and
wherein the user interface has a display zone and a command
zone disposed spatially separate from one another and that
remain in substantially identical and consistent size and
position at all times when in the mosaic view and in the site
navigation view and when selecting between the mosaic view
and the site navigation view;
wherein the display zone and command zone each enclose
content and permit user interaction, some of which content and
the manner of user interaction remains substantially consistent
when switching between views, as follows:
(a) the command zone encloses a player menu button
that is present in both mosaic view and site navigation
view;
(b) the display zone encloses information content
based at least in part on user selection in both mosaic
view and site navigation view;
Appeal 2019-007687
Application 13/937,608

3
wherein the display zone and command zone each enclose
content and permit user interaction, some of which content and
the manner of user interaction differs when switching between
views, as follows:
(c) in the mosaic view, the command zone encloses at
least one additional button actuable by the user to control
what information content is presented in the display
zone;
(d) in the site navigation view, the command zone
encloses a command pad actuable by side-to-side sliding
tactile motion by the user and further actuable by tapping
motion by the user;
(e) in the mosaic view, information content
corresponds to items of information associated with
different information sites;
(f) in the site navigation view, information content is
selected from the group consisting of objects having an
associated function and passive content having no
associated function;
(g) in the mosaic view, content is selectable by the
user through touching items of information content at a
displayed location;
(h) in the site navigation view, information content
includes objects not activated by touch at the display
location; and
(i) in the site navigation view, objects not activated by
touch at the display location are selected by sliding touch
manipulation of the command pad to selectively identify
one of the objects and then by tapping manipulation of
the command pad to confirm selection.
Appeal Br., Tab A, 1–2 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-007687
Application 13/937,608

4
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 9, 10, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Singhal (US 2010/0253620 A1; Oct. 7, 2010), Dunko
(US 2008/0059888 A1; March 6, 2008), and Murphy (US 2010/0220066
A1; Sept. 2, 2010). Non-final Act. 3–9.
Claims 7, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Singhal, Dunko, Murphy, and Ostergaard (US
2008/0301590 A1; Dec. 4, 2008). Non-final Act. 9–11.
Claims 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Singhal, Dunko, Murphy, and Sullivan (US 2009/0300548 A1; Dec. 3,
2009). Non-final Act. 12.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Singhal, Dunko, Murphy, and Macrae (US 2005/0015803
A1; Jan. 20, 2005). Non-final Act. 12–14.
OPINION
For the reasons below, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejection of
claim 1. For the same reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejections
of claims 2–16, which are not separately argued (Appeal Br. 8). See also 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“Each ground of rejection contested by appellant
must be argued under a separate heading[.] . . . When multiple claims
subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group . . . , the Board
may select a single claim . . . [to] decide the appeal . . . with respect to the
group.”).
Claim 1 is rejected over Singhal, Dunko, and Murphy. We agree with
the Examiner’s findings and proposed combination for their teachings. As
the Examiner finds, Singhal illustrates a display area (12) and command
Appeal 2019-007687
Application 13/937,608

5
area (14) for each of a mosaic view (Figure 3A, left display) and navigation
view (Figure 3B). Non-final Act. 3. Murphy describes a command area
having virtual buttons that, like their physical button counterparts (260),
persist in multiple display views (i.e., those button-activated commands
remain when the display changes views). Non-final Act. 5; Murphy ¶ 73.
Dunko illustrates a virtual button (200) that persists in type (“list
mode/application”), size, and position (upper-right) for multiple display
views (Figures 3 and 4). Non-final Act. 6. By these teachings, the
references suggest a device whereby: a mosaic view and navigation view
each include a display area and command area (Singhal); the command area
has virtual-buttons that persist (i.e., a same use of virtual buttons for
commands) when the display changes views (Murphy); and, because the
virtual-button commands persist, the virtual button sizes and locations
persist when the display changes views (Dunko). Non-final Act. 6.
Appellant contends the proposed combination does not teach or
suggest the emphasized limitations of reproduced claim 1 (supra 2).
Specifically, Appellant contends:
[The claimed] display zone and [] command zone . . . remain in
substantially [the same] size and position at all times when in
the mosaic view and in the site navigation view[.]
. . . [T]he Examiner has identified the []bounded control area
14B, 14C . . . as corresponding to [the claimed] command zone.
[Singhal’s] bounded control area 14B, 14C is not substantially
identical and consistent in size and position at all times in all
views. Comparing Fig[s]. 3A and 3B, for example, one can see
that the control area can change size and shape as the user shifts
from one view to another.
Appeal 2019-007687
Application 13/937,608

6
Appeal Br. 9 (citing Singhal ¶¶ 25, 32). We are unpersuaded for each of two
reasons.
First, Appellant overlooks the combination’s mosaic and navigation
views, which have a command area with persisting virtual buttons that
maintain their sizes and locations. See supra 5 (describing the combination).
Appellant does not contest that such a command area would predictably
have a persisting size and position to accommodate the persisting virtual
buttons that maintain their sizes and locations. Appellant instead attacks
Singhal as alone failing to teach a command area of persisting size and
position. App. Br 8–10. Where a rejection alleges a feature is suggested by
a combination of prior art teachings, it is not persuasive to show one
reference fails to teach the feature. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(C.C.P.A. 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not . . . that the [disputed
feature] must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references[, but
rather] what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested.”).
Second, even assuming (arguendo) the applied prior art does not
suggest a command area having an exactly persisting size and location,
Appellant’s argument does not sufficiently address whether the suggested
command area “remain[s] in substantially identical and consistent size and
position” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). Lacking sufficient explanation or
evidence to determine what is meant by “substantially identical,” the
argument thereby lacks a meaningful explanation of why the claimed
command area’s “substantially identical” size and position is alleged to
distinguish the invention over the prior art. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming because appellant “merely argued that the
Appeal 2019-007687
Application 13/937,608

7
claims differed from [the prior art], and chose not to proffer a serious
explanation of this difference.”); Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Claim terms “of degree,”
e.g., “substantially equal to,” are indefinite in the absence of a means to
measure that degree.). We will not “examine the claims in greater detail
than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the
prior art.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appellant also contends:
[The Examiner finds Murphy’s] keys 262, 264, 266, etc., are
virtual keys that stay[] persistently the same location and same
size with different views[.] . . . However, Murphy does not
teach this. . . . Murphy describe[s] the individual keys as
physical control buttons[.] . . . [They are] naturally of
consistent size and position[] because of their physical nature.
[Though the] keys 262–268 may be . . . virtual keys (not
shown), [] there is no teaching that such virtual keys would be
identical and consistent [in] size and position . . . when in the
[different views.] [O]ne of skill in the art would understand
[the] virtual keys to be unconstrained . . . [, g]iven how Murphy
states . . . the four physical control buttons can be replaced with
“one or more” virtual keys[.]
Appeal Br. 10–11 (quoting Murphy ¶ 73) (emphasis added). We are
unpersuaded because Appellant disregards the proposed combination. The
Examiner finds Singhal teaches a command area with virtual buttons,
Murphy teaches persisting virtual buttons, and Dunko teaches a persisting
virtual button as maintaining its size and position for multiple display views.
See supra 5 (describing the combination). In view of these teachings, the
Examiner finds Singhal, Murphy, and Dunko collectively suggest a
command area with persisting virtual buttons that maintain their size and
position. Id. Appellant attacks Murphy as alone failing to teach such a
Appeal 2019-007687
Application 13/937,608

8
command area. App. Br. 10–11. Where a rejection alleges a feature is
suggested by a combination of prior art teachings, it is not persuasive to
show one reference fails to teach the feature. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant further contends:
The inference made in the Examiner’s rejection is apparently
that, because the position of [Murphy’s] physical buttons
cannot change as the device is rotated, the position of virtual
keys also would not change as the device is rotated.
[T]his inference could only be made with the benefit of
hindsight reasoning [because] [o]ne of the usual benefits (taken
advantage of by the cited art) of virtual keys is that they can,
unlike physical buttons, change in size and shape depending on
the orientation of the device.
Reply Br. 5. We are unpersuaded because the argument is neither
commensurate with the claimed invention’s scope nor pertinent to the
rejection’s reading of the claimed views on the proposed combination.
Claim 1 does not recite that the views have different or variable orientations
(e.g., that each has a landscape view and portrait view), but rather only that
they are a mosaic view and navigation view. The rejection does not read the
claimed views on displays having different orientations, but rather reads the
claimed mosaic and navigations views respectively on Singhal’s
same-oriented displays of Figure 3A (left display) and Figure 3B. See supra
5 (describing the combination). Thus, there is no need for the Examiner to
show the proposed combination maintains the size and position of the
command area for views having different or variable orientations.
Appellant also further contends that the Examiner’s findings for
Ostergaard are in error. Reply Br. 6–8. Directed solely to findings
presented by Office Actions preceding the appeal, this Reply Brief argument
Appeal 2019-007687
Application 13/937,608

9
could have been raised by the Appeal Brief.2 It was not and the argument is
thus waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
(informative opinion); 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9, 10, 15,
16
103(a) Singhal, Dunko,
Murphy
1–6, 9, 10,
15, 16

7, 8, 12 103(a) Singhal, Dunko,
Murphy,
Ostergaard
7, 8, 12
11 103(a) Singhal, Dunko,
Murphy, Sullivan
11
13, 14 103(a) Singhal, Dunko,
Murphy, Macrae
13, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–16

2 The Appeal Brief’s only contention as to Ostergaard is that the reference
does not cure the alleged failure of Singhal, Dunko, and Murphy to teach or
suggest claim 1’s “requirement that the display zone and the command zone
remain in substantially identical and consistent size and position at all times
when in the mosaic view and in the site navigation view and when selecting
between the mosaic view and the site navigation view.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appeal 2019-007687
Application 13/937,608

10

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED