Ex Parte Basapur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

13457524 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/457,524 04/27/2012
43471 7590
ARRIS Enterprises, LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
06/22/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Santosh S. Basapur
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CS39210 9292
EXAMINER
VU,TOANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 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):
arris.docketing@arris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANTOSH S. BASAPUR, SHIRLEY A. CHA YSINH,
YOUNG S. LEE, HIREN M. MANDALIA, ASHLEY B. NOV AK, and
NARAYANAN VENKITARAMAN
Appeal2018-001549
Application 13/457,524
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-14, all claims currently pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2018-001549
Application 13/457,524
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "displaying a plurality of
presentation elements." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below with the
disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of displaying a plurality of presentation
elements, the method comprising:
displaying, on a user interface, a progress bar, a length of
the progress bar being representative of a duration of a
multimedia presentation, a point along the length of the progress
bar corresponding to a point within the multimedia presentation;
and
displaying, on the user interface, at least one
communication box, each communication box comprising at
least one marker and a communication composed by a user in
relation to a point or range within the multimedia presentation;
and
receiving, via the user interface, a user input for defining
a time interval by a pinching or squeezing action at a first marker
corresponding to a start time and a second marker
corresponding to an end time;
wherein the progress bar and each communication box are
displayed such that each marker is in alignment with a
corresponding particular point or range along the length of the
progress bar; and
wherein the corresponding particular point or range along
the length of the progress bar corresponds to the point or range
within the multimedia presentation in relation to which the
communication was composed.
REJECTION
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kilar et al. (US 2013/0004138 Al; published Jan. 3, 2013)
2
Appeal2018-001549
Application 13/457,524
("Kilar") and Farrenkopf et al. (US 2011/0283188 Al; published Nov. 17,
2011) ("Farrenkopf'). Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kilar
and Farrenkopf teaches or suggests "receiving, via the user interface, a user
input for defining a time interval by a pinching or squeezing action at a first
marker corresponding to a start time and a second marker corresponding to
an end time," as recited in independent claim 1, with commensurate
limitations in independent claim 9?
Appellants contend Farrenkopf teaches changing display granularity,
which is a change in the appearance of the user interface, but does not teach
the user "defines a time interval (using the display) by a pinching or
squeezing action at points corresponding to a start time and an end time."
Br. 7. Appellants further argue the claim language "indicates that the start
time and/or end time are actually changed by the pinching or squeezing
action, thus defining a time interval- as opposed to Farrenkopf s merely
changing a display granularity (e.g., from days to years in FIG. 7A, and
from years to days in FIG. 7B) without actually defining a time interval
within the displayed range." Br. 7-8 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds Farrenkopf teaches an action performed by a
pinch gesture on the interface, with the thumb finger determining the starting
point and the index finger determining the ending point. Ans. 8-10 ( citing
FarrenkopfFigs. 7A-7B and ,r,r 37-38); Final Act. 3 (citing FarrenkopfFigs.
7 A-7B and ,r 38).
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments.
3
Appeal2018-001549
Application 13/457,524
As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 9), Farrenkopf describes "sliders
instances 705A and 705B represent time values at a first granularity 720A
(days in slider instance 705A) and a second granularity 720B (calendar
weeks in slider instance 705B) after the pinch gesture is applied."
Farrenkopf ,I 37. The examples in Farrenkopf show the first granularity
720A displaying days ranging from March 30, 2010 through April 3, 2010,
and the second granularity 720B, after the pinch gesture is applied using the
thumb and index fingers, displaying weeks ranging from Calendar Week 12,
2010 through Calendar Week 14, 2010. FarrenkopfFigs. 7A, 7B. In other
words, Farrenkopfteaches affecting the displayed time interval (changing
display granularity) using a pinch gesture with a first marker (thumb)
corresponding to a start time (March 30, 2010 in days or Calendar Week 12,
2010, in weeks) and a second marker (index finger) corresponding to an end
time (April 3, 2010 in days or Calendar Week 14, 2010, in weeks). Id.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Farrenkopf does change the time interval
from days to calendar weeks, thus defining a time interval.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that
the claimed "defining a time interval by a pinching or squeezing action at a
first marker corresponding to a start time and a second marker corresponding
to an end time" precludes Farrenkopf s affecting the displayed time interval
by pinching with a first finger marking a start time and a second finger
marking an end time.
For at least the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of independent claims 1 and 9, as well as dependent claims 2-8 and
10-14, not argued separately. See Br. 8.
4
Appeal2018-001549
Application 13/457,524
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-14 is affirmed.
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
5