Ex Parte Chaudhri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

12888362 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/888,362 09/22/2010
150004 7590 03/30/2018
DENTONS US LLP - Apple
P.O. Box 061080
Wacker Drive Station, Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Imran Chaudhri
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.
P7563US1/77770000170101 4321
EXAMINER
SONG, DAEHO D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
patents.us@dentons.com
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.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
Appeal2017-000552 1
Application 12/888,3622
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3, 10, 12, 13, 20-22, 24, 29-31, 33-39, and 41--44.
Claims 11, 32, and 40 are objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. (Final Act. 6.) Claims 4--9, 14--19, 23, and 25-28 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on March 21, 2018.
2 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2017-000552
Application 12/888,362
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to creating
folders on a multifunction device display by moving a first interface object
across the display proximate to a second interface object. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal:
1. A multifunction device, comprising:
a display;
one or more processors;
memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more
programs are stored in the memory and configured to be
executed by the one or more processors, the one or more
programs including instructions for:
displaying a plurality of selectable user interface
objects on the display, including a first application icon
and a second application icon;
detecting a first input;
in response to detecting the first input, moving the
first application icon in the plurality of selectable user
interface objects across the display to a location on the
display that is proximate to the second application icon in
the plurality of selectable user interface objects;
detecting that the first input meets predefined
folder-creation criteria while the first application icon is
proximate to the second application icon; and,
in response to detecting that the first input meets
the predefined folder-creation criteria while the first
application icon is proximate to the second application
icon:
2
Appeal2017-000552
Application 12/888,362
creating a folder that contains the first
application icon and the second application icon;
and
replacing display of the second application
icon with a folder icon that is different from the
second application icon.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 10, 12, 13, 20-22, 24, 29-31, 33-
39, and 41--44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Cleron et al.
(US 8,266,550 Bl, issued Sept. 11, 2012 ("Cleron")). (Final Act. 2---6.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue: 3
Whether the Examiner erred in finding Cleron discloses the
independent claim 1 limitation, "replacing display of the second application
icon with a folder icon that is different from the second application icon,"
and the commensurate limitations recited in independent claims 22 and 24.
(App. Br. 8-16.)
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 8, 2016) (herein, "App.
Br."); the Reply Brief (filed Oct. 10, 2016) (herein, "Reply Br."); the Final
Office Action (mailed Apr. 29, 2015) (herein, "Final Act."); and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Aug. 9, 2016) (herein, "Ans.") for the
respective details.
3
Appeal2017-000552
Application 12/888,362
ANALYSIS
For the requirement of replacing display of the application icon with a
folder icon that is different from the application icon, the Examiner relies on
the disclosure in Cleron of dragging one displayed icon on top of another
icon to create a new box containing the icons. (Final Act. 4; Cleron, Fig.
2A, col. 8, 11. 33--41.) However, as Appellants argue, the icons are not
replaced by the box, but rather are contained within it. (App. Br. 8-16.)
There is no disclosure in Cleron of replacing display of an application icon
with a folder icon that is different from the application icon. Accordingly,
we find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1, 22, and 24.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 22, and 24 as anticipated by Cleron. We also do not
sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 20, 21, 29-31, 33-39, and
41--44 as anticipated by Cleron, which claims depend from claims 1, 22, or
24.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 10, 12, 13, 20-
22, 24, 29-31, 33-39, and 41--44.
REVERSED
4