Ex Parte Chitlur

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2016

12782523 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121782,523 05/18/2010 SUCHITHRA NARASIMHALU CHITLUR
32968 7590 03/03/2016
KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
8611 Balboa Ave
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
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.
UTL 01012 4831
EXAMINER
KUMAR, ANIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2016 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):
KII-USPatents@kyocera.com
Kathleen.Connell@kyocera.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUCHITHRA NARASIMHALU CHITLUR
Appeal2014-002162
Application 12/782,523
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). Appeal Brief 8, 15-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a "wireless handset and method that
allows selection and display of steps from a path of commands" and includes
"a first directory, a first-level subdirectory, and a navigation tracking list."
Abstract.
Appeal2014-002162
Application 12/782,523
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A wireless handset, comprising:
a processor to support a plurality of functions to be
performed by the handset;
a handset display operatively coupled to the processor,
wherein the display presents a user interface, the user interface
configured to receive commands for navigating among the
functions to be performed by the handset;
a first directory presented on the handset display when
accessed;
a first-level subdirectory associated with the first
directory, wherein the first-level subdirectory is accessed from
the first directory, the first-level subdirectory presented on the
handset display when accessed;
a navigation tracking list presented on the handset
display, wherein the navigation tracking list includes,
a first text box representing the first directory, and
a second text box representing the first-level
subdirectory, the second text box adjacent to the first text box;
at least one key disposed on the wireless handset, wherein
the key is configured to receive a selection from one of the first
text box and the second text box.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite. Answer 3.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moehrle (US 200710168882 A 1; July 19, 2007) in view of
Relyea (US 2008/0082935 Al; April 3, 2008). Answer 4.
2
Appeal2014-002162
Application 12/782,523
Claims 8, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moehrle in view of Relyea and further in view of Fleizach
(US 2010/0313125 Al; December 9, 2010). Answer 10.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed December 24, 2012), the Appeal
Brief (filed July 10, 2013), the Examiner's Answer (mailed October 4,
2013), and Reply Brief (filed December 4, 2013) for the respective details.
We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We concur with the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response
to Appellant's Appeal Brief and adopt them as our own, except as to those
findings that we expressly overturn or set aside in the analysis as follows.
Indefiniteness Rejection
Appellant does not argue the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Appeal Brief 8. Accordingly, we summarily
sustain the rejection.
3
Appeal2014-002162
Application 12/782,523
Obviousness Rejection
Regarding claim 1, Appellant argues the combination of Moehrle and
Relyea fail to teach the claimed invention because Relyea "fails to explicitly
or inherently teach or suggest a wireless handset display upon which a first
directory, a first-level subdirectory, and a navigation tracking list are
presented." Appeal Brief 10 (emphasis removed). In particular, Appellant
contends "Relyea does not explicitly teach or suggest that the interactive
GUI is displayed on the 'additional access devices 114' of Relyea" (Appeal
Brief 10), and the combination of the references would yield a system "in
which a user would view system options on a GUI displayed on a standalone
display" and "control the system via inputs on a separate 'additional access
device."' Appeal Brief 10-11; Reply Brief 3.
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds "the access
devices 114 [of Relyea] may be configured to access content stored and/or
processed by the processing subsystem 110," which indicates a user may
view content on the access device. Answer 14, quoting Relyea ,-r 50. One of
ordinary skill in the art, designing an access device used to access or view
content, would logically place a GUI on the access device rather than on a
separate standalone display, because the user's attention would be focused
on the content viewed through the access device. 1
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error and
therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
1 An obviousness analysis "need not seek out precise teachings directed to
the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007).
4
Appeal2014-002162
Application 12/782,523
claim 1, and independent claims 9 and 1 7 commensurate in scope, as well as
the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and
18-22 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 12-14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5