Ex Parte Halme

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2016

12593497 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/593,497 02/16/2010
10949 7590 07/22/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
J aakko Halme
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.
042933/407258 6111
EXAMINER
HUERTAS TORRES, AYESHAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAAKKO HALME
Appeal2015-003129
Application 12/593,497
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
4, 6-19, and 21, all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2015-003129
Application 12/593,497
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to accessing content using a system search
tool, without the need to navigate through a hierarchical menu or a folder
structure of a search based user interface. Spec. i-fi-120, 21; App. Br. 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
when a content is accessed, automatically assigning, by a
system, one or more search identifiers to the respective content
which is accessed for comparison with one or more search inputs
during a subsequent search operation to allow for searching of
the respective content, wherein the one or more search identifiers
are stored in the system and the respective content is stored in or
accessible by the system;
detecting, by the system, a search input to the system as
part of the subsequent search operation;
comparing, by the system, the detected search input with
the one or more stored search identifiers;
determining, by the system, stored search identifiers which
at least partially correspond to the detected search input;
displaying, on the system, a list of the respective content
associated with the determined stored search identifiers; and
enabling, by the system, a user to select one or more of the
content in the list.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Tosey (US 2004/0153527 Al; publ. Aug. 5,
2004 ). Final Act. 3---6.
Claims 2, 3, 6-9, 11, 12, and 14--17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the Tosey and Jobling (US 8,108,796 B2; iss. Jan.
31, 2012). Final Act. 6-14.
2
Appeal2015-003129
Application 12/593,497
OPINION
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred
because T osey does not describe "when a content is accessed," assigning
identifiers to content. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 1-3. We are persuaded of
error.
The Examiner does not adequately explain how Tosey's "initialization
request" (Fig. 3), which initiates the creation of "a keyword string database
that includes one or more keyword strings representing the name of an
object or the attributes of an object associated with a service" (Ans. 3 (citing
Tosey, Fig. 3)) equates to claim 1 's assigning identifiers to content "when a
content is accessed." We are persuaded that Tosey's initialization happens
before content is accessed. Claims 10 and 19 include a similar recitation.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
10, and 19. Because the remaining claims depend from claims 1, 10, and 19,
we also do not sustain the rejections of the dependent claims.
We also note Appellant's unanswered arguments of error in the
rejections of claims 4, 13, 18, and 21 (App. Br. 7-8), 7 and 15 (id. 11-12), 8,
and 16 (id. 12-13), 9 (id. 13-14), and 17 (id. 14--15).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-19, and 21.
REVERSED
3