Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2020

14142648 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
14/142,648 12/27/2013 Imran Chaudhri P7563USX1/77770000170401 9871
150004 7590 02/28/2020
DENTONS US LLP - Apple
4655 Executive Dr
Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
EXAMINER
HAILU, TADESSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2020 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):
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
patent.docket@dentons.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IMRAN CHAUDHRI and MARCEL VAN OS
Appeal 2018-006652
Application 14/142,648
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7, 9, and 13–16.2 See Final Act. 1.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal
Br. 4.
2 Claims 8 and 10–12 stand objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but the Examiner indicated they would be allowable if rewritten
in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and
any intervening claims. Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2018-006652
Application 14/142,648

2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on
February 19, 2020.
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a device, method, and graphical user
interface for managing folders with multiple pages. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing
one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising
instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with
a display cause the device to:
concurrently display a plurality of selectable user interface
objects that includes one or more folder icons on the display;
detect a first input that corresponds to a request to select a
respective folder icon for a respective folder, the respective
folder including a first number of selectable icons divided
between a plurality of distinct separately displayed pages,
including a first page and a second page; and
in response to detecting the first input, display a folder
view for the respective folder, wherein:
the folder view includes room to simultaneously display
no more than a second number of selectable icons that is less than
the first number of selectable icons; and
the folder view displays the first page that includes a first
subset of the selectable icons in the folder;
while displaying the first page of the folder view, detect a
second input that corresponds to a request to display the second
page of the folder view; and
in response to detecting the second input, cease to display
the first page of the folder view and display the second page of
the folder view for the respective folder, wherein the second page
of the folder view includes a second subset of the selectable icons
different from the first subset of the selectable icons.
Appeal 2018-006652
Application 14/142,648

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–7, 9, and 13–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Wasko (US 2011/0061010 A1, published Mar. 10, 2011).
Final Act. 4.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends the cited
portions of Wasko do not disclose the limitation “display a folder view for
the respective folder, wherein [] . . . the folder view displays the first page
that includes a first subset of the selectable icons in the folder,” as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 12 (alteration in original). Appellant argues that Wasko
does not disclose receiving an input corresponding to a folder icon and then,
in response, displaying first and second pages of a folder view of the
respective folder corresponding to the folder icon. Reply Br. 4. In particular,
Appellant argues that nothing in Wasko Figure 3 depicts the contents of any
of the folder icons, much less a “first page that includes a first subset of the
selectable icons in the folder.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further argues that
paragraphs 36–40 of Wasko do not disclose viewing the contents of the
folders. Id.
The Examiner relied on Figure 3 and paragraphs 36–40 of Wasko as
disclosing the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5. The Examiner found that
Wasko detects a first input that corresponds to a request to select a
respective folder icon (selecting folder icon 308a, in Wasko Figure 3) for a
respective folder. Id. at 4. The Examiner further found that Wasko discloses
a respective folder including a first number of selectable icons divided
between a plurality of distinct separately displayed pages, including a first
page and a second page (in response to the selected folder icon 308a, the
Appeal 2018-006652
Application 14/142,648

4
corresponding pages 1 through 4 (320) are rendered in the first portion (GUI
302) in Wasko Figure 3). Id. at 5.
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred. Wasko discloses that a
user may select a folder to “sync” selected user selectable applications to.
Wasko ¶ 37. Wasko discloses that each of the application icons 318 for the
selected user selectable applications 310 “may be automatically inserted into
the selected folder 308a-n in the second portion 304.” Id. Wasko further
discloses that “[w]ithin the folder 308a-n, the selected application icons 318
may be inserted in any manner desired.” Id. ¶ 38. The Examiner has not
clearly explained where Wasko discloses that the synced applications appear
in pages 1 through 4 of the first portion 302 in Figure 3.
To the extent the Examiner relies on aspects of Wasko’s Figures 2A–
2D in addition to Figure 3, Figures 2A–2D do not depict a folder view for
the respective folder, wherein the folder view displays the first page that
includes a first subset of the selectable icons in the folder and Figure 3 are
different example of a graphical user interface. See Ans. 9–10; Wasko ¶ 36.
Moreover, elements from different embodiments in a reference cannot be
combined to support an anticipation rejection. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To the extent the
Examiner relies on paragraphs 41–55 of Wasko, we find nothing in those
paragraphs that discloses a folder view that displays a first page that includes
a first subset of the selectable icons in the folder. See Ans. 8–10.
For these reasons, the Examiner has not shown that Wasko discloses
the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, on this record, we find at least one error in the
Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art to disclose the limitations of claim
Appeal 2018-006652
Application 14/142,648

5
1, as well as independent claims 15 and 16, which recite similar limitations.
See Appeal Br. 25–27. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation of independent claims 1, 15, and 16, and dependent claims 2–7,
9, 13, and 14, which stand therewith.
Because it is dispositive that the Examiner has not shown by a
preponderance of evidence that the cited prior art discloses the disputed
limitation “display a folder view for the respective folder, wherein [] . . . the
folder view displays the first page that includes a first subset of the
selectable icons in the folder,” we do not address other issues raised by
Appellant’s arguments related to these claims. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet
Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency
is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–7, 9, and
13–16.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9,
13–16
102(e) Wasko 1–7, 9, 13–16

REVERSED