Ex Parte Foxenland

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 21, 2012

11463123 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 21, 2012)

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.
11/463,123 08/08/2006 Eral D. Foxenland PS05 0522US1 6426
58342 7590 08/21/2012
WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19TH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
GREENE, SABRINA LETICIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ERAL D. FOXENLAND
________________

Appeal 2010-004967
Application 11/463,123
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004967
Application 11/463,123

2
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-14 and 21-32:
1. Claims 1-13, 21-25, and 27-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Georges (US 6,972,363 B2; issued Dec.
6, 2005; filed Dec. 18, 2002).
2. Claims 14 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Georges in view of Brown (US 2007/0010195 A1;
published Jan. 11, 2007; filed July 8, 2005).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of generating a multimedia user interface,
comprising:
playing background music with an electronic device;
ascertaining a parameter associated with the music; and
adapting visual content of a graphical user interface
through which a user commands performance of an electronic
device function unrelated to the music and that is displayed on a
display of the electronic device in conformance with the
parameter of the music by applying a visual effect to the visual
content, the visual effect having an association with the
parameter.

CONTENTIONS
Georges discloses a device for playing and creating music. (Title;
Abstract; col. 7, ll. 4-8.) The Examiner found that Georges discloses
adapting visual content of a graphical user interface through which a user
Appeal 2010-004967
Application 11/463,123

3
commands performance of an electronic device function unrelated to the
music. (Ans. 3-4 (citing col. 3, l. 24 to col. 4, l. 15).) As a further
explanation, the Examiner stated:
A graphical display is provided to display status information,
graphical representations of musical lanes or components,
which preferably vary in shape, color or other visual attribute as
musical parameters and the like are changed for particular
instruments or musical components such as a microphone input,
samples, etc[.] (Col. 3, lines 31-37).
(Ans. 11.)
Appellant recognized that Georges discloses composing and editing
music using graphical user interfaces that depict animated visual content
corresponding to elements of the music. (App. Br. 8-9.) Appellant asserted,
however, that such graphical user interfaces in Georges relate directly to the
music. (Id.)
In response to the Examiner’s conclusion that Georges discloses in
column 3 adapting visual content of a graphical user interface through which
a user commands performance of an electronic device function unrelated to
the music, Appellant contends that the portion of Georges cited by the
Examiner describes the graphical user interface through which a user
composes and edits music. (Reply Br. 3; see also App. Br. 7 (stating “the
operational modes of the handheld musical device of Georges et al. directly
relate to the music function of the device”).) Appellant describes how
Georges’ graphical user interface (called an I-Way mode) includes the
elements included in the portion of column 3 cited by the Examiner and that
the graphical user interface is used to play and compose music. In
particular, Appellant points out that “musical lanes” are used to set music
parameters for each music component and represent a different element in a
Appeal 2010-004967
Application 11/463,123

4
song, such as vocals, drums, base riff, and lead. (App. Br. 8-9 (citing col.
11, l. 11 to col. 14, l. 27).)

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant. Georges’ disclosure relates to playing and
creating music. Although Georges discloses graphical user interfaces that
depict animated visual content corresponding to elements of music, those
graphical user interfaces are used for playing and creating music. For
example, Georges discloses that a graphical user interface also can include
sample lanes that enable a user to interact with pre-stored samples of voices
and microphone lanes that enable a user to manage the microphone input.
(Col. 10, ll. 54-59.)
As such, the Examiner has not established that Georges discloses the
recited adapting visual content of a graphical user interface through which a
user commands performance of an electronic device function unrelated to
the music. Accordingly, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1, or of claims 2-13 and 27-29, which depend from claim
1.
We likewise do not sustain the anticipation rejection of independent
claim 21, which recites a similar limitation, or of claims 22-25 and 30-32,
which depend from claim 21.
The obviousness rejection of dependent claims 14 and 26 also suffers
from the above-noted error. In rejecting claims 14 and 26, the Examiner
found that Brown discloses playing music on a mobile telephone and
otherwise relied on Georges’ disclosure. (Ans. 10.) Accordingly, we do not
Appeal 2010-004967
Application 11/463,123

5
sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 26 for the reasons set forth above with
respect to claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 21-32 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc