13558854 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2017)

Ex Parte Arrasvuori

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 20, 2017

13558854 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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. 13/558,854 07/26/2012 Juha Henrik Arrasvuori P5393US01 3611 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER CHUANG, JUNG-MU T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/24/2017 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUHA HENRIK ARRASVUORI Appeal 2017-000464 Application 13/5 5 8,8541 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellant seeks review under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-000464 Application 13/558,854 Invention The claims are directed to a user interface allowing a user to select multiple parameters. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or processing at least one of (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the following: at least one determination to generate a user interface presenting one or more representations of one or more parameters associated with a plurality of categorical dimensions, wherein the plurality of categorical dimensions define categories related to the one or more parameters; one or more manipulations of the one or more representations in the user interface, wherein each of the one or more manipulations comprise a simultaneous selection of a plurality of parameters from the one or more parameters; and a processing, by a processor, of the one or more manipulations to select from among the one or more parameters, the plurality of categorical dimensions, or a combination thereof. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on Exemplary Claim Applied Prior Art appeal is: Chu Gottsman Holmes US 2006/0015401 A1 Jan. 19, 2006 US 2006/0179032 A1 Aug. 10, 2006 US 2006/0271876 A1 Nov. 30, 2006 2 Appeal 2017-000464 Application 13/558,854 Kruzeniski Lanier US 2010/0105370 A1 Apr. 29, 2010 US 2011/0183654 A1 July 28, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1—5, 10-15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holmes and Chu. Final Act. 5—10. Claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holmes, Chu, and Gottsman. Id. at 10-11, 14—16. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holmes, Chu, and Kruzeniski. Id. at 12—13. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holmes, Chu, and Lanier. Id. at 13—14. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—16), the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2—3), and the findings and the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 15—23). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Holmes teaches “one or more manipulations . . . wherein each of the one or more manipulations comprise a simultaneous selection of a plurality of parameters,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11. App. ANALYSIS 3 Appeal 2017-000464 Application 13/558,854 Br. 6—9; Reply Br. 2—6. Specifically, Appellant argues that Holmes does not teach “the simultaneous selection of two or more parameters with one manipulation” (App. Br. 6—7, 9; Reply Br. 3) because, in Holmes, multiple parameters are selected by clicking multiple checkboxes (App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 5). We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Holmes teaches “a user interface . . . with a plurality of parameters associated with a plurality of categories (e.g., ‘White[,’] ‘Red[,’] ‘Blue[,’] and ‘Yellow’ for the printer color category and ‘Default[,’] ‘Supported[,’] and ‘Ready’ for the printer mode category).” Ans. 19 (citing Holmes Fig. 2); see Final Act. 5—6 (citing Holmes 20-26). The Examiner further finds, and we agree “a single selection of the checkbox, 206a in Figure 2 of Holmes would simultaneously select the parameter of printer mode category (‘Supported’) and the parameter of printer color category (‘White’).” Ans. 19 (citing Holmes Fig. 2). Appellant’s argument that, in Holmes, multiple checkboxes are clicked to select multiple parameters (App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 5) is not responsive to the Examiner’s finding that clicking a single checkbox in Holmes selects multiple parameters. In particular, Appellant does not address Holmes’ selection of checkbox 206a, which selects both the “Supported” parameter and the “White” parameter, i.e., selects multiple parameters. Ans. 19 (citing Holmes Fig. 2); Holmes 124. Holmes’ selection of a single interface checkbox which selects a parameter along a y- axis, i.e., colors, and another parameter along an x-axis, i.e., printer attributes (Holmes 124, Fig. 2) is consistent with the Specification’s description of a selection of a single interface point which selects a first 4 Appeal 2017-000464 Application 13/558,854 category parameter along a y-axis and second category parameter along a x-axis (Spec. Tflf 58—60, Fig. 4a). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Holmes teaches “one or more manipulations . . . wherein each of the one or more manipulations comprise a simultaneous selection of a plurality of parameters,” within the meaning of claims 1 and 11. Remaining Claims 2—10 and 12—21 Appellant does not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2—10 and 12—21, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 or 11. See App. Br. 9-14. For the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2—10 and 12—21. See 37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1— 21. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5