Ex Parte de Leon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 4, 2013

11563377 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2013)

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.
11/563,377 11/27/2006 David de Leon 9342-380 1851
54414 7590 10/04/2013
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
RIEGLER, PATRICK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte DAVID DE LEON, SIMON WINTER, and STAFFAN HJORT1
__________

Appeal 2011-006833
Application 11/563,377
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and ULRIKE W.
JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
electronic device operating method and a mobile terminal. The Examiner
has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sony Ericsson Mobile
Communications AB (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-006833
Application 11/563,377

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 3-19 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 2). Claims 1
and 9 are representative and read as follows:
1. A method of operating a handheld electronic device, the method
comprising:
placing the handheld electronic device in a first mode of operation
responsive to a user selection of the first mode of operation after operation in
a second mode of operation in which a first animation is applied to a
graphical user interface (GUI) element on a display of the electronic device;
generating a dynamic recording including transition information
relating to a series of physical inputs to the handheld electronic device
responsive to a sensor of the handheld electronic device while in the first
mode of operation;
placing the handheld electronic device in the second mode of
operation after terminating generation of the dynamic recording; and
generating and applying a new second animation that reflects the
transition information included in the dynamic recording to the GUI element
on the display of the electronic device in the second mode of operation of
the handheld electronic device based on the dynamic recording generated
while the handheld electronic device was in the first mode of operation.
9. The method of Claim 1, wherein generating and applying a new
second animation comprises defining a window transition behavior, a menu
transition behavior and/or a dialog transition behavior.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Choi et al. (US 2007/0067745 A1, Mar. 22, 2007) in view of
Jaeger (US 2006/0077206 A1, Apr. 13, 2006) (Ans. 4).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Choi in view of Jaeger and Marvit et al. (US 7,173,604 B2, Feb. 6, 2007)
(Ans. 15).
Appeal 2011-006833
Application 11/563,377

3
I
The Examiner relies on Choi for teaching the first two steps in the
method of claim 1 (Ans. 4). In addition, the Examiner finds:
Choi et al. further discloses moving the mobile phone 915
allows a user to create a line which is displayed 916 on the
mobile phone display and to lengthen it. The movement of the
mobile phone 913 determines motion vectors, which are
converted to navigational instructions that reflect the direction
the user desires to lengthen the drawn line 916.
(Id. at 4-5.)
The Examiner relies on Jaeger for disclosing additional aspects of the
method of claim 1 (id. at 5-6). In particular, the Examiner finds:
Jaeger discloses a system and method for creating and playing
tweening animations allows a user to simply draw a graphic
directional indicator, e.g., an arrow, in a computer environment
to associate graphic objects with the graphic directional
indicator and generate a tweening animation of at least one of
the associated graphic objects.
(Id. at 5.)
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made given the teachings of Choi et
al. and Jaeger that a method . . . of operating an electronic
device would include placing the handheld electronic device in
the second mode of operation after terminating generation of
the dynamic recording; and generating and applying a new
second animation that reflects the transition information
included in the dynamic recording to the GUI element on the
display of the electronic device in the second mode of operation
of the handheld electronic device based on the dynamic
recording generated while the handheld electronic device was in
the first mode of operation.
Appeal 2011-006833
Application 11/563,377

4
(Id. at 6.)
Analysis
With regard to claim 1, Appellants argue that the “tweening
animations described in Jaeger do not ‘reflect the transition information
included in the dynamic recording’ described in Choi’s motion vectors”
(App. Br. 6). We are not persuaded.
We agree with the Examiner that it is reasonable to interpret
“transition information” to include “directional movement information”
(Ans. 18). As noted by the Examiner, the “arrows of Jaeger . . . define
directional information for the objects in the interface” (id.; see also Jaeger,
Abstract, ¶ [0050], & ¶ [0056]). As also noted by the Examiner, Choi
discloses that “the motion determined by [a] recording state can be used in a
drawing application to draw[] lines on a display” (Ans. 19; see also Choi,
¶ [0079] & ¶ [0136]). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that, as combined,
Jaeger’s animation reflects the directional movement information included
in Choi’s dynamic recording (Ans. 6 & 18-19).
With regard to claim 9, Appellants argue that Choi’s paragraph
[0134], which is relied on by the Examiner to teach this feature (Ans. 8),
does not “apply[] a dynamic recording that was generated when the device
was in a first mode of operation, and then ‘defin[e] a window transition
behavior, a menu transition behavior and/or a dialog transition behavior’ in a
second mode of operation entered ‘after terminating generation of the
dynamic recording’” (App. Br. 7). We agree.
We interpret the recitation in claim 9 of “generating and applying a
new second animation” to refer to the generating and applying step of
Appeal 2011-006833
Application 11/563,377

5
claim 1, which generates and applies a second animation “to the GUI
element on the display of the electronic device in the second mode of
operation . . . based on the dynamic recording generated while the . . .
electronic device was in the first mode of operation” (claim 1, emphasis
added). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately
explained how Choi and Jaeger suggest generating and applying an
animation that defines a window, menu, and/or dialog transition behavior to
a GUI element on the display of an electronic device in a second mode of
operation based on a dynamic recording generated while the electronic
device was in a first mode of operation.
Conclusion
The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Choi and
Jaeger suggest the method of claim 1. We therefore affirm the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 and of claims 3-6, 8, and 10-19, which are not separately
argued and therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
However, the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Choi
and Jaeger suggest the method of claim 9. We therefore reverse the
obviousness rejection of claim 9.
II
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner relies on Choi and Jaeger as
discussed above and additionally relies on Marvit (Ans. 15-16). Appellants
argue that claim 7 is patentable for “the reasons supporting the patentability
of independent Claim 1” (App. Br. 8). We are not persuaded by this
argument for the reasons discussed above. We therefore affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 7.
Appeal 2011-006833
Application 11/563,377

6
SUMMARY
We affirm the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-19.
However, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 9.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc