Ex Parte Gouesbet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2017

12296620 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 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.
12/296,620 06/02/2009 Pierre-Erwann Gouesbet AMDSP010 1043
98055 7590
Zilka-Kotab, PC -AMDS
1155 N. 1st St.
Suite 105
San Jose, CA 95112
10/26/2017 EXAMINER
JAIN, ANKUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2017 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PIERRE-ERWANN GOUESBET and
ELOUAN LE COQ
Appeal 2017-003212
Application 12/296,620
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5—11, 14, and 16. Claims 2, 4, 12, 13, 15, and
17—22 have been cancelled. App. Br. 18—23 (Claims App’x). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-003212
Application 12/296,620
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a process for rendering at least
one multimedia scene, particularly with respect to orientation of a display.
Spec. 3^4. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A process, including:
determining an orientation of a display of a terminal with
respect to a user;
changing both an orientation of a multimedia scene and
an organization of at least two objects within the multimedia
scene in response to the determination, the organization
including a placement of the at least two objects within the
multimedia scene, where changing the orientation is performed
according to the determined orientation of the display and
changing the organization is performed according to at least one
arrangement information item present in the multimedia scene,
and includes:
activating instructions for arranging the placement
of the at least two objects within said multimedia scene
in a first organization for an orientation of the display in
a portrait mode, when it is determined that the orientation
of the display of the terminal is currently in the portrait
mode with respect to the user, and
activating instructions for arranging the placement
of the at least two objects within said multimedia scene
in a second organization separate from the first
organization for an orientation of the display in a
landscape mode, when it is determined that the
orientation of the display of the terminal is currently in
the landscape mode with respect to the user; and
2
Appeal 2017-003212
Application 12/296,620
rendering the multimedia scene reorganized on the
display;
wherein the at least one arrangement information
item includes:
an indicator noting that the multimedia
content adapts to a change in orientation of the
display of the terminal,
the instructions for arranging the placement
of the at least two objects within the multimedia
scene in the first organization for the orientation in
the portrait mode, and the instructions for
arranging the placement of the at least two objects
within the multimedia scene in the second
organization different from the first organization
for the orientation in the landscape mode;
wherein the arranged placement of the at least two
objects within the multimedia content in the first organization
for the orientation of the display in the portrait mode includes a
title positioned above first text, the first text positioned above
an image, and the image positioned above second text; and
wherein the arranged placement of the at least two
objects within the multimedia content in the second
organization for the orientation of the display in the landscape
mode includes the title positioned to a side of the first text, the
first text positioned above the second text, and the second text
positioned to a side of the image.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5—11, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of White et al. (US
3
Appeal 2017-003212
Application 12/296,620
2005/0266899 Al; published Dec. 1, 2005) (“White”) and Barile (US
2002/0093531 Al; published July 18, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of White and Barile does not teach
or suggest “changing an organization of at least two objects within the
multimedia scene in response to determining an orientation of a display of a
terminal with respect to a user,” as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent claims 11 and 14. App. Br. 13—17.
Specifically, Appellants argue “Barile does not relate to re-organizing a
same set of objects from portrait to landscape mode or vice versa, in
dependence on the orientation of a display, let alone in the specific manner
appellant claims.” App. Br. 13. According to Appellants, “Barile discloses
that in order to view multiple video feed during a video chat session, the
display automatically operates in landscape mode in order to have sufficient
space on the display to show each of the video feeds simultaneously.” App.
Br. 13. Appellants further argue in Barile, “[t]he landscape mode is
triggered regardless of the orientation of the display with respect to the
user.” App. Br. 15. Appellants also argue White does not disclose
“changing both an orientation of a multimedia scene and an organization of
at least two objects within the multimedia scene in response to the
determination.” Reply Br. 6.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because they do not address
the combination of references as relied upon by the Examiner, but rather
address White and Barile individually. See Final Act. 5—7; Ans. 7—8.
Nonobviousness “cannot be established by attacking the references
4
Appeal 2017-003212
Application 12/296,620
individually” when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior
art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). The Examiner relies on White, not Barile, to teach or suggest
changing an organization in response to determining an orientation of a
display of a terminal with respect to a user. Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 7—8.
Indeed, White explicitly describes use of an orientation sensor or other user
input that enables the controller to determine the orientation of the mobile
telephone so that the display may be viewed in portrait or landscape
orientation. White Tflf 79, 82, 88, 89, Figs. 10, 12. The Examiner relies on
Barile to teach or suggest “at least two objects within the multimedia scene.”
Ans. 8. Barile describes various display embodiments of images, graphics,
and textual materials, and specifically, different display organization
placement in portrait and landscape modes. Barile 34, 35, Figs. 2, 6. We
agree with the Examiner that the combination of the foregoing disclosures
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
With the combination of Barile and White, the Examiner further relies
on an “obvious to try” rationale to teach or suggest the last two limitations of
claims 1,11, and 14, specifically with respect to the placement of the text
and images. Final Act. 4—5, 8—9 (emphasis omitted); Ans. 8—9. In addition
to similar arguments as raised above, which we reject for the same reasons,
Appellants argue “Barile does not solve the problem suggested by the
Examiner (i.e. to display items in a more organized fashion in landscape
mode), but instead merely allows windows to be larger and more easily
seen.” App. Br. 17. Appellants further argue “Barile does not teach
rearranging text with reference to an image and a title.” Reply Br. 8.
5
Appeal 2017-003212
Application 12/296,620
We are not persuaded. As discussed above, Barile teaches display of
images, graphics, and textual materials, as well as different display
organization in portrait and landscape modes. Barile 34, 35. The
Examiner has made the requisite fact findings to support an ‘obvious to try’
rationale. First, the Examiner identifies a problem in the art, to display items
in a more organized fashion in landscape mode. Ans. 9. Second, the
Examiner identifies that “since there is a finite and limited amount of
display/screen area, there is a finite number of ways to arrange the same
textual and video information.” Ans. 9. Third, the Examiner finds, based on
the aforementioned finite number of predictable potential solutions, that one
of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these known solutions with
reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed invention. Ans. 9.
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1,11, and 14. Because Appellants do not separately
argue the dependent claims (App. Br. 12), we also sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 3, 5—10, and 16 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 5—11, 14,
and 16 is affirmed.
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
6