Ex Parte Freyhult et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2017

13552483 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2017)

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.
13/552,483 07/18/2012 Maria Christina Nathalie FREYHULT 29717-1140002 5354
94149 7590 04/26/2017
Fish & Richardson P.C. (Blackberry)
P.O.Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440
EXAMINER
AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2017 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARIA CHRISTINA NATHALIE FREYHULT,
ARUN KUMAR, JONAS OVE ARBSJO, ERIK ARTUR GREISSON,
CHRISTOFER BENGT THURE LEYON, and MARTIN CHAKIROV
Appeal 2015-007180
Application 13/552,483
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, DENISE M. POTHIER, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—31.1 App. Br. 7—11. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed October 10, 2014, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed December 10,
Appeal 2015-007180
Application 13/552,483
Invention
Appellants’ invention concerns a graphical user interface (GUI) and,
more specifically, displaying at least two categories in discrete display areas
(e.g., 400, 405) of device (e.g., tablet or phone) 100’s display 110. See Spec.
26:14—27:1, Fig. 4. Each category contains data files organized by a
criterion and associated, graphical representations of the data files. See id. at
27:15—18, 29:19—26, Fig. 4. For example, one displayed category includes
representations of data files recently loaded to a device (e.g., in element 405)
and another category includes representations of data files recently viewed
or accessed on the device (e.g., in element 400). Id. at 27:3—9, Fig. 4. A
device’s GUI may provide a launch screen for an application, and an input to
the device includes a user activating an application (e.g., using command
icons 436-438). Id. at 11:11—15, 28:8—15, Fig. 4.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of generating a graphical user interface on a display of a
computing device, the method comprising:
associating a plurality of stored data files concurrently into at least
one of a plurality of categories,
subsequently receiving an input to the device, and in response to
the input, displaying a launch screen of an application, the launch
screen comprising a display of at least two of the categories, each
displayed category being populated with a plurality of individual
graphical representations of data files associated with that category
and each category being displayed within a respective discrete display
area of the displayed launch screen and wherein a first category
includes those data files recently added to the device and a second
category includes those data filed recently viewed or accessed on the
device.
2014, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed June 15, 2015, and (4) the
Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed July 27, 2015.
2
Appeal 2015-007180
Application 13/552,483
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Claims 1—31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Drucker and Gupta. Final Act. 2—14.
Claims 1,21, 22, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Gupta. Final Act. 14—17.2
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER DRUCKER AND GUPTA
Regarding representative,3 independent claim 1, the Examiner finds
Drucker teaches many of its limitations, except the recitations related to the
launch screen of an application. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Drucker || 32, 36,
38, 39, 42, 43, 48—50, 61, Figs. 3—6, 8—9B). For the missing features, the
Examiner turns to Gupta and combines certain of its teachings with Drucker.
Id. at 3^4 (citing Gupta H 21, 68, 70-71).
Appellants argue that Gupta teaches an overlay superimposed over a
current video presentation and is silent regarding “a launch screen of an
application” as recited. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 1. Appellants also contend,
2 The Final Action states that claims 1—31 are anticipated by Gupta. Final
Act. 14. For this rejection, the Examiner only provides an explanation for
claims 1, 21, 22, and 31. Id. at 14—17. We thus presume the Examiner has
rejected only claims 1, 21, 22, and 31 under § 102 for purposes of this
opinion.
3 Claims 1—31 are argued as a group. App. Br. 7—11. Independent claims
21, 22, and 31 have similar limitations to those disputed for claim 1.
Compare App. Br. 12 with id. at 14—17. We select claim 1 as representative.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Drucker
Gupta
US 2005/0192924 A1 Sept. 1, 2005
US 2009/0222757 A1 Sept. 3, 2009
The Rejections
3
Appeal 2015-007180
Application 13/552,483
consistent with Dracker’s teachings, each of Gupta’s object 46 is “uniquely
populated” or categorized and “is not concurrently in two or [more]
categories.” App. Br. 10. Appellants assert claim 1 is “[i]n direct contrast to
this unique categorization of a data file[,]” and “is explicit that a single data
file can be in two or more categories concurrently^ such that the data file]
can therefore be viewed in two distinct areas on the same screen at the same
time,” which both Drucker and Gupta allegedly teach against. Id. at 11.
ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
determining Drucker and Gupta collectively would have taught or suggested:
I. “displaying a launch screen of an application” in response to
receiving an input to the device, and
II. “a first category includes those data files recently added to the
device and a second category includes those data filed recently viewed or
accessed on the device”?
ANALYSIS
I.
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, “displaying a launch screen of an application” in response to receiving
an input to the device. The Examiner determines Gupta teaches this feature
when a Favorites menu is invoked. Final Act. 3 (citing Gupta H 21, 68,
70-71) and Ans. 3—5 (citing Gupta ]ff[ 70-71). Appellants contend Gupta is
4
Appeal 2015-007180
Application 13/552,483
silent regarding “a launch screen of an application.” App. Br. 9; Reply
Br. 1. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
The disclosure does not define “a launch screen.” See generally Spec.
Nor does the Specification exclude certain structure or modules from being
“a launch screen.” Further, Appellants do not provide an ordinary
understanding of this phrase as understood by one having ordinary skill in
the art. App. Br. 9. Given the record, “a launch screen of an application”
can be broadly, but reasonably construed to include various possible screens,
such as menus or windows, launched “in response to [an] input [to the
device]” as recited in claim 1.
Gupta discusses in paragraph 21a Favorites GUI 42 that is
superimposed (e.g., displayed) on a video presentation. Gupta 121. Gupta
teaches this Favorites feature can be a “menu of Favorites” invoked by
remote control 22 when a user presses Favorites key 30. Id. at H 21, 27,
70-71. Gupta further describes displaying “the Favorites application” when
pressing the Favorites key 30. Gupta 128. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’ mapping of “displaying a launch screen” in response to an input
to a device, as recited, to Gupta’s displaying Favorites menu or application.
Notably, claim 1 recites “displaying a launch screen of an application”
(emphasis added) and not displaying a screen upon launching an application
as Appellants may be asserting. App. Br. 9 (stating “[t]his is not a launch
screen of an application- the video presentation of [0021 ] is already
launched.”) We disagree with any assertion that the prior art, including
Gupta, must teach or suggest launching an application to teach the disputed
limitation of “displaying a launch screen of an application.” Rather, as noted
above, Gupta need only teach displaying a launch screen of an application.
5
Appeal 2015-007180
Application 13/552,483
Appellants admit Gupta’s application (e.g., video presentation) has
been launched {id.), and as explained above, Gupta teaches displaying a
launch screen of such an already-launched application. Nonetheless and
even though not necessary to teach the recited “displaying of a launch screen
of an application,” Gupta describes displaying “the Favorites application”
when pressing the Favorites key 30. Gupta 128. The Examiner additionally
indicates that Gupta suggests that different categories can be shown “when
the device is powered on” (e.g., when launching yet another application).
Ans. 5.
Gupta thus, when combined with Drucker, teaches and suggests the
step of “displaying a launch screen of an application” in response to
receiving an input to the device as recited in claim 1.
II.
Appellants further argue that claim 1 “is explicit that a single data file
can be in two or more categories concurrently,” and both Drucker and Gupta
teach “against this.” App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded. The word
“concurrently” is found in claim 1 only when reciting “associating a
plurality of stored data files concurrently into at least one of a plurality of
categories.” App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x). In this context, claim 1 requires
each stored data file is associated with at least one— not two —of a
plurality of categories.
Also, the recitation of “a first category includes those data files
recently added to the device and a second category includes those data files
recently viewed or accessed on the device” {id.) encompasses situations
where a single data file may or “can [be] include[d] in two or more
categories concurrrently” {id. at 11), but this is not a requirement of claim 1.
6
Appeal 2015-007180
Application 13/552,483
To be sure, the disclosure discusses (1) “it will not be unexpected for a first
data file [to] be in each of the first and second categories” (Spec.
27:23—24) and (2) a data file “may turn up in each of the two display
segments [of “Recently Viewed” and “Recently Added]” (id. at 27:28).
Although this informs our construction of the above disputed phrase, we
decline to import such embodiments into claim 1, which fails to recite a
requirement that a data file be in both of the two different categories
claimed. See also Ans. 3 (stating “given the fact that the limitation only
requires two different categories of information to be presented . . . .”)
As such, Appellants’ contention that “any modification to Drucker to
present the same image concurrently in two different categories is something
that would not be made by a person skilled in the art” (id. at 11) is
unavailing. Moreover, the purported modification to Drucker as asserted by
Appellants (id.) is not being proposed. Final Act. 3^4 (stating only “it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art... to combine
Gupta into Drucker” as “a variant option” (id. at 3) or “one variant display
layout. . . [as] an obvious inclusion into another browser/viewer.” (id. at 4)).
To the extent that this argument is contending that the stated reasons
for combining Gupta with Drucker (e.g., “the combination would yield a
faster/quicker viewing of images in categories” and “for [the] purpose of
accelerating browsing/viewing for a user” (Final Act. 4)) does not hold
because “the speed is already maximized in Drucker (see App. Br. 10), we
disagree. Contrary to Appellants’ assertion that Drucker requires the user to
go through each picture and, thus, the sorting speed is limited by the user
(see App. Br. 10), Drucker teaches a subcomponent of the sorting program
can include automatically pre-classifying in order to narrow the set of digital
7
Appeal 2015-007180
Application 13/552,483
data from a larger collection to a smaller subset automatically. Drucker
136, cited in Final Act. 2. Additionally, the Examiner explains Gupta
teaches automatically categorizing both favorite and history items. Ans. 6;
see also Gupta H 21, 70—71, cited in Final Act. 3. As such, Gupta’s
teaching to classify into two groups (e.g., favorites and history) lends itself
to Drucker’s teaching of automatically narrowing the set of digital data from
a larger collection to a smaller subset and therefore yields a faster or quicker
viewing of images into categories as the Examiner states. Final Act. 3^4. In
particular, the Examiner teaches the combination yields an initial sorting of
items (e.g., data files) into different separate display areas representing
different categories of both recently added (e.g., favorites) and recently
viewed (e.g., history) to permit faster and quicker viewing of images for
additional sorting. See id.
Lastly, in the Reply Brief, Appellants specifically dispute for the first
time the Examiner did not consider the limitation “each displayed category
being populated with a plurality of individual graphical representation” in
claim 1, and Gupta fails to teach this limitation. Reply Br. 2. Specifically,
Appellants argue that none of Gupta’s favorite objects 46 “are populated
with a plurality of individual graphical representations” and “the history icon
48 only displays one item at a time.” Id. We disagree.
Gupta states “[i]n certain implementations, the menu of Favorites is
displayed as a horizontal sequence of icons with a plurality of History list
entries situated at the center of the horizontal sequence of icons, where a
latest entry is at the center and is flanked by other History list entries.”
Gupta 170, quoted in Ans. 3; see also Gupta 64, 68, 71, Fig. 4. For
example, Gupta shows in Figure 4 the History list, which is mapped to he
8
Appeal 2015-007180
Application 13/552,483
recited “second category [that] includes those data files recently viewed”
(Ans. 5), as a plurality of objects or icons 48 (e.g., a plurality of individual
graphical representations of data files). Gupta H 21, 25—26, 70—71, Fig. 4.
Gupta additionally describes the History list can include History list entries,
where the latest entry is at the center as an icon (e.g., one individual
graphical representation) and other History list entries flank the center icon.
See id.
Also, Gupta discloses a Favorites row 42 that includes objects or icons
46, separate from the History list entries. See id. at Fig. 4. These objects or
icons 46 collectively are mapped to the recited “first category [that] includes
those data files recently added to the device” (Ans. 5) and are a plurality of
individual graphical representations of data files as recited. The categories
are also in a discrete display area as shown in Figure 4. Gupta, Fig. 4. We
therefore disagree Gupta fails to teach the recited two categories, where
“each displayed category being populated with a plurality of individual
graphical representations of data files associated with that category” as
claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2—31 not separately
argued (see App. Br. 7—11).
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER GUPTA
Appellants do not acknowledge or address this rejection. App. Br.
7—11. Even so, Appellants present arguments regarding Gupta when
discussing the obviousness rejection. See id. For the reason previously
stated, these arguments concerning Gupta are unavailing. Accordingly,
9
Appeal 2015-007180
Application 13/552,483
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
21, 22, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—31 under § 103.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,21, 22, and 31 under
§102.
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
10