Ex Parte Baarz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

13890071 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018)

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.
13/890,071 05/08/2013 Ryan S. Baarz 2591US01 6180
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
SUN, LI P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2018 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@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RYAN S. BAARZ, DAREN G. REAVIS,
CAMERON R. COWAN, and MATTHEW J. AUNE
Appeal 2017-008414
Application 13/890,071
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-008414
Application 13/890,071
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3—6, 8, 10-12, 14, 22, 23, 25—31, 34, and 35. Claims 2, 7, 9, 13,
15—21, 24, 32, and 33 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a user interface, in which one display
area has a set of cards displayed and another display area has a set of proxies
displayed. Each proxy corresponds to one of the cards in the set of cards
and the set of proxies can be used to sort and navigate the cards in various
manners. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, shown here with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method comprising:
displaying, in a first display area of a user interface, a set of
cards in a particular order relative to one another;
displaying, in a second display area of the user interface, a set
of proxies in a particular order relative to one another, each proxy
corresponding to a card of the set of cards, the set of proxies including
a proxy for each card in the set of cards;
maintaining both a record of the proxies in the set ofproxies
and a record of the cards in the set of cards, each record describing a
location, an identifier, and a correspondence for said proxies and
cards',
adding, in response to a user input to add an additional proxy to
the set of proxies, an additional proxy to the set of proxies and a
corresponding additional card to the set of cards; and
updating the record of the proxies in the set of proxies with the
additional proxy and the record of the cards in the set of cards with the
corresponding additional card.
2
Appeal 2017-008414
Application 13/890,071
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 14, 22, and 27—31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 2013/0222283 Al, published
Aug. 29, 2013) and Stallings et al. (US 8,453,057 B2, issued May 28, 2013).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yun, Stallings, and MacLean et al. (US 2014/0115508 Al, published
Apr. 24, 2014).
Claims 4, 11, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yun, Stallings, MacLean, and Qureshi et al.
(US 2002/0140724 Al, published Oct. 3, 2002).
Claims 5, 12, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yun, Stallings, and Czerwinski et al. (US 2004/0066414
Al, published Apr. 8, 2004).
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yun, Stallings, Shim et al. (US 2014/0297647 Al, published
Oct. 2, 2014), and Dutta (US 6,983,424 Bl, issued Jan. 3, 2006).
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yun, Stallings, and Taylor et al. (US 2012/0197949 Al, published Aug.
2,2012).
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yun, Stallings, MacLean, and Taylor.
ANALYSIS
§103 Rejection—Yun and Stallings
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 15—17; see
also Reply Br. 7—9) that Yun and Stallings would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “maintaining both a
3
Appeal 2017-008414
Application 13/890,071
record of the proxies in the set of proxies and a record of the cards in the set
of cards.”
The Examiner found that the display unit of Yun, which displays
screen regions and thumbnail images, as illustrated in Figure 5, and the
memory of Yun, which stores a program for operating a controller,
collectively correspond to the limitation “maintaining both a record of the
proxies in the set of proxies and a record of the cards in the set of cards.”
(Final Act. 4.) In particular, the Examiner stated that “[b]ased on [the]
broadest reasonable interpretation,... the recited ‘record’ [is construed] as
any data being stored” (Ans. 22) and “in order to display the four
icons/thumbnail pages and their corresponding pages in the manner as
shown in [Yun’s] Figs. 4A, 4B and 5, both the icons/thumbnail pages and
their corresponding pages must be stored in some type of memory, e.g.,
memory 160 in Fig. 1)” {id. at 23). We agree with the Examiner.
Independent claim 1 recites “maintaining both a record of the proxies
in the set of proxies and a record of the cards” (emphases added). One
relevant plain meaning for “record” is “the state or fact of being recorded”
with “recorded” being defined as “to cause (sound, visual images, data, etc.)
to be registered on something (such as a disc or magnetic tape) in
reproducible form.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 977
(10th ed. 1999). Such an interpretation is consistent with Appellants’
Specification, which discloses the following:
The records of the proxies and/or cards can be maintained in a
variety of different manners. For example, the records can be
document object models (DOMs) identifying the proxies and/or
cards. Alternatively, various other data structures can be used as
the records, such as arrays, trees, linked lists, and so forth.
4
Appeal 2017-008414
Application 13/890,071
(Spec. 160.) Thus, using the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, we interpret the limitation “record” as the state of
causing data to be registered on something, such as a disc, magnetic tape, or
solid-state memory, in reproducible form.
Yun relates to a mobile terminal having “a display unit configured to
display a page of an electronic note and display a thumbnail image
corresponding to another page along with the page.” (Abstract.) Figure 1 of
Yun illustrates a block diagram illustrating mobile terminal 100, which
includes output unit 150, memory 160, and controller 180. (1 57.) Yun
explains that “[t]he memory 160 may store a program for operating the
controller 180, or temporarily store input/output data (for example,
Phonebooks, messages, still images, moving images, and the like).” (1 87.)
Figure 5 of Yun illustrates display unit 251 having thumbnail image 262,
such that “the controller 180 may configure a first and a second screen
region based on a touch input on the thumbnail image 262, and displays a
currently displayed] page and the next page in the first and the second
screen region” (| 145) and “thumbnail images [262] corresponding to the
previous and next pages” (1143). Because Yun explains that controller 180
configures a first and a second screen region, including thumbnail images
262, and memory 160 stores programs for operating controller 180, Yun
teaches the limitation “maintaining both a record of the proxies in the set of
proxies and a record of the cards in the set of cards.” In particular, because
the contents of display unit 251 (i.e., placement of the first and second
screen regions and thumbnail images 262) are stored in memory 160, a
“record” of such content is created in memory 160.
5
Appeal 2017-008414
Application 13/890,071
Appellants argue that a previous amendment to “this claim to recite
‘maintaining both a record of the proxies in the set of proxies and a record of
the cards in the set of cards’ . . . incorporate[s] the notion of the
organizational structure that is utilized to enable the proxy sorting and card
navigation functionality,” whereas “Yun neither discloses nor suggests any
such organizational structure that includes both a record of the proxies and a
record of the cards.” (App. Br. 15 (emphases omitted); see also Reply
Br. 8.) Similarly, Appellants argue that “[a]s Yun does not disclose the
notion of ‘both a record of the proxies . . . and a record of the cards’, it is
virtually impossible for Yun to disclose an organizational structure where
each record describes ‘a location, an identifier, and a correspondence for
said proxies and cards’ as recited in this claim.” (App. Br. 16 (ellipsis in
original); see also Reply Br. 9.) However, Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim does not recites an
“organizational structure.” As discussed previously, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, the limitation
“maintaining both a record of the proxies in the set of proxies and a record
of the cards in the set of cards” is broad enough to encompass memory 160
of Yun, which stores the program for operating controller 180 that
configures display unit 251, including the placement of the first and second
screen regions (i.e., the claimed “cards”) and thumbnail images 262 (i.e., the
claimed “proxies”).
Appellants further argue that “[Stallings] does not disclose or suggest
‘maintaining both a record of the proxies in the set of proxies and a record of
cards in the set of cards, each record describing a location, an identifier, and
a correspondence for said proxies and cards’” (App. Br. 21—22; see also
6
Appeal 2017-008414
Application 13/890,071
Reply Br. 13—14) because “the term ‘record’ does not appear in Stallings at
all” (App. Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 14). However, the Examiner cited to
Yun, rather than Stallings, for teaching the limitation “maintaining both a
record of the proxies in the set of proxies and a record of the cards in the set
of cards.” (Final Act. 4.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Yun and
Stallings would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation “maintaining both a record of the proxies in the set of proxies
and a record of the cards in the set of cards.”
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 22—24;
see also Reply Br. 14—16) that the Examiner improperly combined Yun and
Stallings.
The Examiner found that the graphical user interface (GUI) data of
Stallings corresponds to the limitation “each record describing ... an
identifier ... for said . . . cards.” (Final Act. 6 (citing Stallings Fig. 4, col. 5,
11. 29-40).) The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious . . .
to modify the method, disclosed in Yun ... for the purpose of provide a user
interface that can be implemented with few gestures/ keystrokes and can
minimize the need to ‘drill down’ through multiple menus/windows, as
taught by Stallings.” (Id.) We agree with the Examiner.
As discussed previously, Yun relates to a mobile terminal having “a
display unit configured to display a page of an electronic note and display a
thumbnail image corresponding to another page along with the page.”
(Abstract.) Yun explains that display unit 151 displays output information
processed in the mobile terminal 100, for example, a user interface (UI) or a
graphic user interface (GUI) related to a phone call or images related to a
7
Appeal 2017-008414
Application 13/890,071
video call mode or an image capturing mode. (178.) Yun further explains
that display unit 151 can also display visual information, such as a character,
a numeral, a symbol, a graphic, or an icon. (199.)
Stallings relates to device displays, in particular, “a graphical window
from a sequence of graphical windows, where the graphical window
includes a group of display elements.” (Abstract.) Stallings explains that
“[djespite the large number of options [for display devices], such users still
desire to find and select a desired icon quickly” and “[t]hese user interfaces
may require a user to ‘drill down’ through multiple menus to select a desired
icon or other item.” (Col. 1,11. 13—21.) Moreover, Stallings explains that
“GUI data 420 may include information that may be used by user interface
controller 410 to compile windows 110” (col. 5,11. 29-30) and that
“[ejxemplary user preferences may include format preferences for particular
windows 110 (e.g., font/icon sizes, colors, window titles, backgrounds, etc.)”
(col. 5,11. 34—36). Because Stallings explains that GUI data 402 includes
information for compiling window 110, for example, window tiles, Stallings
teaches the limitation “each record describing ... an identifier ... for said
. . . cards.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the GUI data of Stallings, for providing information about
windows, with the mobile terminal Yun, would improve Yun by providing
the advantage of quickly locating a desired icon displayed on the GUI. See
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Alternatively, the
combination of Yun and Stallings is nothing more than incorporating the
known GUI data of Stallings with the known mobile terminal of Yun, to
yield predictable results. See id. at 416. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
8
Appeal 2017-008414
Application 13/890,071
(Final Act. 6) that modifying Yun to incorporate the GUI data of Stallings
would have been obvious.
Appellants argue that “[i]t is unclear, at best, how Stallings’ window
title, which is a format preference and which appears to serve nothing more
than a visual purpose in a user interface . . . can enable Yun to provide a user
interface that can be implemented with few gestures/keystrokes and can
minimize the need to ‘drill down’ through multiple menus/windows.” (App.
Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 14.) Similarly, Appellants argue that “it is unclear
. . . how Yun would operate using drill down menus for its serial, linear icon
layout.” (App. Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 15.) However, Yun generally
explains that display unit 151 utilizes a graphic user interface (GUI) (1 78),
including the use of icons (199), and thus, modifying Yun to include GUI
data, including information related to windows, would result in more
effectively locating a desired icon. Accordingly, the combination of Yun
and Stallings 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.
Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined Yun and Stallings to
reject independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Claims 6 and 8 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 10 and 22 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
9
Appeal 2017-008414
Application 13/890,071
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
0Compare App. Br. 13—24, with id. at 24-45.) We sustain the rejection of
claims 10 and 22, as well as dependent claims 14 and 27—31, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Remaining § 103 Rejections
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 3—5, 11, 12, 23, 25, 26, 34, and 35 separately (App. Br. 24, 35, 46),
the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why
the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead,
Appellants argue that: (i) “the Office’s reliance on: MacLean in further
rejecting claim 3; Quereshi [sic] in further rejecting claim 4; and Czerwinski
in further rejecting claim 5 is not seen to add anything of significance” (App.
Br. 24); (ii) “the Office’s further reliance on Quereshi [sic] in rejecting
claim 11 and Czerwinski in rejecting claim 12 is not seen to add anything of
significance” (App. Br. 35); and (iii) “the Office’s reliance on: Shim and
Dutta in rejecting claim 23; on Quereshi [sic] in rejecting claim 25, on
Czerwinski in rejecting claim 26; on Taylor in rejecting claim 34; and
MacLean and Taylor in rejecting claim 35 adds nothing of significance”
(App. Br. 46). We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
discussed with respect to claims 1,10, and 22, from which claims 3—5, 11,
12, 23, 25, 26, 34, and 35 variously depend. Accordingly, we sustain these
rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—6, 8, 10-12, 14, 22, 23,
25—31, 34, and 35 is affirmed.
10
Appeal 2017-008414
Application 13/890,071
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
11