Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2020004233 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

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. 15/986,567 05/22/2018 Rachel Clare Goldeen P5393USC2 (119-1593USC2) 1298 61947 7590 03/01/2022 Apple - Blank Rome c/o Blank Rome LLP 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77002 EXAMINER LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2423 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): houstonpatents@blankrome.com mbrininger@blankrome.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RACHEL CLARE GOLDEEN, JEFFREY MA, MICHAEL MARGOLIS, RAINER BRODERSEN, CALIN PACURARIU, and JEFFREY L. ROBBIN ___________ Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, HUNG H. BUI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-20. Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, and 17 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a user interface arrangement that presents and permits navigation of categorized media items. (Abstract.) Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method for media searching comprising: displaying a first user interface including a plurality of selectable items; receiving a first selection of a search item from the plurality of selectable items; in response to receiving the first selection, displaying a second user interface having a first region and a second region, wherein the first region includes a plurality of characters that are available for selection; receiving a second selection of a first character from the plurality of characters; in response to receiving the second selection: causing a search query to be generated corresponding to the first character; and 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 3 transmitting the search query to a media server; after transmitting the search query to the media server, receiving search results associated with the search query from the media server, the search results including media information related to a plurality of media items available from the media server, the media information including an image associated with each respective media item of the plurality of media items; after receiving the search results, displaying, in the second region of the second user interface, a listing of a plurality of representations of media items, wherein a first representation of the plurality of representations: corresponds to a first media item of the plurality of media items; and includes a first image associated with the first media item; receiving a third selection of the first representation; and in response to the third selection, displaying, in the first region of the second user interface, additional information pertaining to the first media item, wherein the additional information is displayed concurrently with the plurality of representations, and wherein the additional information includes information not included in the listing of the plurality of representations. 6. The method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving an indication to continue searching; and causing to be displayed, in response to receiving the indication to continue searching, the listing of the plurality of representations, the first region, and the first character. REFERENCES Name Reference Date Thomas et al. US 2007/0162502 A1 July 12, 2007 Rasanen et al. US 2008/0086456 A1 Apr. 10, 2008 Glennon et al. US 2008/0288461 A1 Nov. 20, 2008 Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 4 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Glennon, Rasanen, and Thomas. OPINION Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2-4) that the combination of Glennon, Rasanen, and Thomas would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the disputed limitation: in response to the third selection, displaying, in the first region of the second user interface, additional information pertaining to the first media item, wherein the additional information is displayed concurrently with the plurality of representations, and wherein the additional information includes information not included in the listing of the plurality of representations. The Examiner found that Figure 5 of Glennon, which illustrates a screen shot of entry screen 550 with virtual keypad 552 and list 554, corresponds to the limitation “displaying a second user interface having a first region and a second region, wherein the first region includes a plurality of characters that are available for selection.” (Ans. 4; see also Non-Final Act. 3.) The Examiner further found that Figure 8 of Thomas, which illustrates media library page 800 including listing 810 and window 814, corresponds to the limitation “in response to the third selection, displaying . . . additional information pertaining to the first media item, wherein the additional information is displayed concurrently with the plurality of representations, and wherein the additional information includes information not included in the listing of the plurality of representations.” (Ans. 5; see Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 5 also Non-Final Act. 4-5.) The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious . . . to modify the [Glennon and Thomas] references . . . for the common knowledge purpose of utilizing limited screen space of the display device and conveying additional information for better media content selection by the user.” (Ans. 4-5; see also Non-Final Act. 5.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Glennon “relates to performing searches on digital video recorders (‘DVRs’).” (¶ 3.) Glennon explains that “[t]o initiate the search for program titles, people, or tags, the user enters alphanumeric characters or symbols for the program title, person, or tag that the user wishes to query in search box 400.” (¶ 78.) Figure 5 of Glennon, reproduced below, illustrates a screen shot of entry screen 550, including virtual keypad 552, entry field 500 (¶ 130), and list 554 for displaying search results (¶ 135). Figure 5 illustrates a screen shot of entry screen 550. Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 6 In particular, in reference to Figure 5, Glennon explains that “if the user enters the alphanumeric characters ‘G’ and ‘A,’ 500 then the search application would return results that include the tag ‘GAMBLING,’ 502 and the actors ‘Tim Gamble’ 504, and ‘Michael Gambon’ 506.” (¶ 78.) Because Figure 5 of Glennon illustrates virtual keypad 552 and list 554 for displaying search results, Glennon teaches the limitation “displaying a second user interface having a first region and a second region, wherein the first region includes a plurality of characters that are available for selection.” Thomas relates to interactive media guidance applications. (¶ 1.) Figure 8 of Thomas, reproduced below, illustrates media library page 800 (¶ 88), including listings 810 (e.g., content title) (¶ 89) and window 814 (¶ 92). Figure 8 illustrates media library page 800. Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 7 In particular, Thomas explains that “the user may display additional information related to a program by highlighting the listing [810] (e.g., with highlight region 812) associated with the program and selecting a ‘program information’ option (e.g., button 816)” and “the interactive media guidance application may display the information in window 814.” (¶ 92.) Because Thomas explains that the user can highlight listing 810, such that information is displayed in window 814, Thomas teaches the disputed limitation: “in response to the third selection, displaying . . . additional information pertaining to the first media item, wherein the additional information is displayed concurrently with the plurality of representations, and wherein the additional information includes information not included in the listing of the plurality of representations,” as recited in claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating window 810 of Thomas for information about a title, with the search features, as illustrated in Figure 5 of Glennon, including virtual keypad 552 and list 554, would improve Glennon by providing additional information about a selected title. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Alternatively, the combination of Glennon and Thomas amounts to nothing more than adding the known window 810 of Thomas with the known search features, as illustrated in Figure 5 of Glennon, including virtual keypad 552 and list 554, to yield predictable results. See id. at 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 8 it does no more than yield predictable results.”). This combination of Glennon and Thomas would result in the incorporation of window 810 of Thomas with virtual keypad 552 and list 554 of Glennon, and thus, teaches the disputed limitation: in response to the third selection, displaying, in the first region of the second user interface, additional information pertaining to the first media item, wherein the additional information is displayed concurrently with the plurality of representations, and wherein the additional information includes information not included in the listing of the plurality of representations. We agree, therefore, with the Examiner (Ans. 4-5) that modifying Glennon to incorporate of window 810 of Thomas would have been obvious. We do not find Appellant’s assertions of Examiner error persuasive. First, Appellant argues that “[w]hile Thomas discloses displaying program information in a dedicated description window, Thomas does not teach or suggest the description window is otherwise associated with selectable characters, as described with respect to the first region of the second user interface of the claims” and “it appears that the description window is persistent on the UI [user interface].” (Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).) However, the Examiner cites to Thomas for teaching the limitation “displaying . . . additional information pertaining to the first media item” (Ans. 5) and cites Glennon for teaching the limitation “first region includes a plurality of characters that are available for selection” (id. at 3). The rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Glennon and Thomas, and Appellant cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Second, Appellant argues that “just because Thomas teaches a first UI [user interface] feature may be positioned in a left portion of a screen does Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 9 not mean that Thomas teaches or suggests replacing or otherwise supplementing a separate UI feature with the first UI feature.” (Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2-3.) However, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim does not recite “replacing” the plurality of characters with the additional information in the first region. Moreover, the claim limitation “display concurrently” is broad enough to encompass displaying both virtual keypad 552 of Glennon and window 814 of Thomas. Third, Appellant argues that “nothing in Thomas or Glennon indicates a motivation to modify a UI region associated with selectable characters to include more information about a selected media item.” (Appeal Br. 10.) In particular, Appellant argues that “Thomas is unconcerned with modifying a region of a UI that includes selectable characters” and “Glennon is unconcerned with providing additional information for a media item upon selection of a representation of that media item.” (Id.) Again, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Glennon and Thomas, and Appellant cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Last, Appellant argues that “the Examiner wholly does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the disclosure, would have sought to modify the references ‘for the common knowledge purpose of utilizing limited screen space of the display device and conveying addition[al] information.’” (Reply Br. 4.) Similarly, Appellant argues that “simply noting that the claimed first region is on the left side of the screen of Glennon and citing Thomas because Thomas includes additional information on the left as well . . . does not explain why that person of ordinary skill Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 10 would combine the references in such a way.” (Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted).) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, as discussed previously, the combination of Glennon and Thomas is based on the improvement of a similar device in the same way as in the prior art, or alternatively, combining known elements to achieve predictable results. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Glennon, Rasanen, and Thomas would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the disputed limitation: in response to the third selection, displaying, in the first region of the second user interface, additional information pertaining to the first media item, wherein the additional information is displayed concurrently with the plurality of representations, and wherein the additional information includes information not included in the listing of the plurality of representations. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2, 4, and 7 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 15, as well as dependent claims 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 11 Claims 6, 13, and 19 We are further unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 12) that the combination of Glennon, Rasanen, and Thomas would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 6, which includes the limitations “receiving an indication to continue searching” and “causing to be displayed, in response to receiving the indication to continue searching, the listing of the plurality of representations, the first region, and the first character.” The Examiner found that the user entry of letters into entry field 500, as illustrated in Figure 5 of Glennon, corresponds to the limitations “receiving an indication to continue searching” and “causing to be displayed, in response to receiving the indication to continue searching, the listing of the plurality of representations, the first region, and the first character.” (Ans. 7-8; see also Non-Final Act. 6.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Glennon explains that “if the user enters the alphanumeric characters ‘G’ and ‘A,’ [entry field] 500 then the search application would return results that include the tag ‘GAMBLING,’ 502 and the actors ‘Tim Gamble’ 504, and ‘Michael Gambon’ 506.” (¶ 78.) Glennon further explains that “the alphanumeric characters ‘M’, ‘B,’ and ‘L’ might be added to the alphanumeric characters ‘GA’ that were entered previously” and “the actor ‘Michael Gambon’ would be removed because the actor’s last name, ‘Gambon’ does not contain the search query alphanumeric characters ‘GAMBL.’” (Id.) Because Glennon explains that the user can enter more letters to entry field 500, (e.g., the addition alphanumeric characters “M”, “B”, and “L” to “GA” so the search query is “GAMBL”), Glennon teaches the limitation “receiving an indication to continue searching.” Moreover, Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 12 because Glennon explains that search results differ when additional characters are entered (e.g., “Michael Gambon” is excluded when the search query is “GAMBL”), Glennon teaches the limitation “causing to be displayed, in response to receiving the indication to continue searching, the listing of the plurality of representations, the first region, and the first character.” Appellant argues that “Glennon do[es] not address causing the first region and first character to be displayed in response to continued searching.” (Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).) In particular, Appellant argues that “as the first character and first region in Glennon are always displayed while a search is ongoing (e.g., until the user selects a media item), continued searching does not cause the first character and first region to be displayed” and “[t]he first character and first region are displayed regardless of whether search continues until the user selects a media item.” (Id. (emphases omitted).) However, the claim limitation “causing to be displayed, in response to receiving the indication to continue searching, the listing of the plurality of representations, the first region, and the first character” is broad enough to encompass the exemplary embodiment of Glennon, in which adding alphanumeric characters “M”, “B”, and “L” to “GA” limits the return results (i.e., “Michael Gambon” is excluded when the search query is “GAMBL”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Glennon, Rasanen, and Thomas would have rendered obvious dependent claim 6, which includes the limitations “receiving an indication to continue searching” and “causing to be displayed, in response to receiving the Appeal 2020-004233 Application 15/986,567 13 indication to continue searching, the listing of the plurality of representations, the first region, and the first character.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claims 13 and 19 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to dependent claim 6, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 19 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 6. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. DECISION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18-20 103 Glennon, Rasanen, Thomas 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18-20 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED