Ex Parte Hobbs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2017

14198301 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 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.
14/198,301 03/05/2014 Rowland Hobbs 710392-000380 7955
29540 7590 07/25/2017
DAY PTTNFY T T P
EXAMINER
One Canterbury Green
201 Broad Street
PAYER, PAUL F
Stamford, CT 06901 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2017 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):
Patents @ daypitney. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROWLAND HOBBS, GEORGE DY, DUKE SHERMAN,
and DAVID SONNENBERG
Appeal 2017-001206
Application 14/198,3011
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC C. HOFF, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 13—31.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention is a processor-implemented method to generate
a mosaic of images. Possible template configurations for the group of
images are determined based on the number of images and the dates
associated with the images. A mosaic is generated from the group of images
1 The real party in interest is Linea Photosharing LLC.
2 Claims 1—12 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2017-001206
Application 14/198,301
by virtually assembling the templates in a linear string, and populating the
mosaic with the group of images. A navigation user interface is provided to
permit a user to use a touchscreen to scroll through the pictures in the
mosaic by swiping. See Abstract; App. Br. 3^4; Spec. Tflf 39-47.
Claim 13 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
13. A computing device having one or more processors,
memory, a display screen and at least one program, wherein the
at least one program is stored in the memory and configured to
be executed by the one or more processors, the at least one
program including instructions for operating a system for
generating a mosaic of a plurality of provided images, the at least
one program including:
instructions for providing a user input interface for
obtaining or receiving via a processor a group of images;
instructions for processing the group of images in order to
assemble the mosaic from a plurality of image templates for
displaying via the processor on the computing device, each
image template including a plurality of image tiles and having a
height and width that is the same size as
the screen of the computing device, the instructions being
configured to assemble a mosaic by virtually assembling the
templates in a linear string, populating the mosaic with the group
of images, and displaying the mosaic on the screen of the
computing device; and
instructions for providing a navigation user interface via
processor to a user to permit the user to use a touchscreen of the
client to scroll through the pictures in the mosaic by the user
swiping a finger across the screen of the client.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Paul et al.
Mizoguchi
Bogart et al
Doll et al.
US 2010/0043017 Al
US 8,064,710 B2
US 8,212,834 B2
US 2013/0024757 Al
Feb. 18,2010
Nov. 22,2011
July 3, 2012
Jan. 24, 2013
2
Appeal 2017-001206
Application 14/198,301
Bunting, DBB Kazaa Database File — 1st 9 Fields plus Kazaa Flash
Decoded 1—3 (2003).
Miller, Windows Phone 7 Companion 1—6 (2010).
Siegler, Distilled from Burbn, Instagram Makes Quick Beautiful
Photos Social 1—13 (2010).
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paul, Bogart, Miller, and Doll.
Claims 14—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paul, Bogart, Miller, Doll, and Siegler.
Claims 19, 20, and 22—31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Paul, Bogart, Miller, Doll, Siegler, and Mizoguchi.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paul, Bogart, Miller, Doll, Siegler, Mizoguchi, and
Bunting.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Mar. 3, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 25,
2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 25, 2016) for their
respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Paul, Bogart, Miller, and Doll teaches or
fairly suggests instructions for processing a group of images in order to
assemble a mosaic from a plurality of image templates for displaying on a
computing device?
2. Does the combination of Paul, Bogart, Miller, and Doll teaches or
fairly suggests instructions for providing a navigation user interface via
processor to a user to permit the user to use a touchscreen to scroll through
3
Appeal 2017-001206
Application 14/198,301
pictures in the mosaic by the user swiping a finger across the screen of the
client?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The determination of obviousness must consider, inter alia, whether a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have
been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Medichem S.A. v.
Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1124 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict,
the Examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to
one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one
reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If the proposed modification would render the prior
art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then
there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, our reviewing court
has held that “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGSImporters Inti,
73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
4
Appeal 2017-001206
Application 14/198,301
ANALYSIS
Claim 13
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argued that the Examiner erred in
combining the references because the Examiner applied an erroneously
overbroad construction of “template” and “template configuration.” App.
Br. 6—7. Appellants pointed out that the Specification contained a definition
of “template” as “one or more virtual image tiles arranged in a specific
pattern,” and a definition of “template configuration” as “an arrangement of
templates and/or template sets in a configuration (e.g., an ordered set of
individual templates and/or template sets).” App. Br. 7, citing Spec. 139.
Appellants further argued that Miller “does not disclose a scrollable display
including a plurality of templates, but merely discloses a single scrollable
Start-up screen pattern,” and has constraints on customization, such that
combining Miller with the other references would render those other
references unsatisfactory for their intended purposes. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner, in the Answer, stated that “[f]or the sake of clarity,”
the Examiner had removed the broad constructions of “template” and
“template configuration” from the rejection. Ans. 16. With regard to Miller
allegedly rendering other references unsatisfactory for their intended
purposes, the Examiner responded that Miller “has been recited simply for
teaching navigation between pages of content by using a swipe operation on
a touch-sensitive screen.” Ans. 16.
Appellants, in reply, argued that Miller’s manual scrolling features are
not compatible with the non-scrollable displays of Paul, Bogart, and Doll.
Reply Br. 5. Appellants argued that Doll states that through its teachings
“‘the user can achieve a magazine-like reading experience of the variety of
5
Appeal 2017-001206
Application 14/198,301
content items from a variety of sources without the inconvenience of
horizontal or vertical scrolling to see other items on the page.'1'1'’ Reply
Br. 5; Doll 129.
Doll states that it is frustrating, especially for a user of a device with a
small screen, to have to “spend considerable time scrolling back and forth or
up and down to view the web page.” Doll 1 5. Appellants argue that Doll
thus teaches away from combination with Miller, which Appellants
characterize as teaching the manual scrolling disfavored by Doll. See Reply
Br. 5-6.
Doll is concerned with presenting a plurality of content items on a
single display “page” for a user to view without the “frustration” of needing
to scroll down or across to see some of the content items. While Doll does
not disclose the portion of its interface that would be directed to navigating
to another such “page,” Doll makes clear that it contemplates the existence
of a plurality of pages, when it compares the user experience of scrolling
unfavorably relative to a newspaper or magazine, in which a user “simply
turns the page to continue experiencing the content.” Doll | 5. Appellants’
invention similarly contemplates more content than can be displayed on a
single page or screen. Appellants disclose a mosaic “displayed on the screen
of the user’s client as a continuous film strip and/or a loop, and the user may
use the client’s touchscreen to scroll through the pictures in the mosaic (e.g.,
by rolling the mosaic left or right).” Spec. 147.
The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not contest, that “Doll does
not provide any detail about how a user would navigate through the
sequence of pages,” but that “[i]n the case of a smart phone, one common
technique would be for the user to navigate by swiping the finger up, down,
6
Appeal 2017-001206
Application 14/198,301
left or right” on the display. Ans. 4—5. The Examiner further finds that in
Miller, “on the start screen, a user can view additional tiles, several screens
worth, scrolling vertically up or down or can navigate to the application
launcher by sliding the finger from right to left.” Ans. 5; Miller p. 4.
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion, not specifically rebutted by
Appellants, that it would have been obvious “to have used navigation
techniques similar to those described by Miller [i.e., swiping a finger left or
right] to navigate through a sequence of Doll’s pages. . . . Those techniques .
. . would have allowed a user to conveniently and efficiently navigate
through the sequence of discrete pages to view the respective content.”
Ans. 5. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner does not propose to
modify Doll to include scrolling within a page.
Because we are not persuaded that Miller teaches away from the
combination with Doll, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 13 as being unpatentable over Paul, Bogart, Miller, and Doll.
We sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.
Claims 14—18
Appellants do not provide separate argument for the patentability of
claims 14—18, remarking only that Siegler fails to remedy the deficiencies of
the base combination of references (Paul, Bogart, Miller, and Doll) with
respect to assembling a mosaic from a plurality of image templates. App.
Br. 9.
Because we do not agree with Appellants that deficiencies exist in the
rejection of parent claim 13, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
14—18 over Paul, Bogart, Miller, Doll, and Siegler, for the same reasons
expressed with respect to the rejection of claim 13, supra.
7
Appeal 2017-001206
Application 14/198,301
Claims 19,20, and 22-31
Appellants do not provide separate argument for the patentability of
claims 19, 20, and 22—31, remarking only that Mizoguchi fails to remedy the
deficiencies of the base combination of references (Paul, Bogart, Miller, and
Doll) with respect to assembling a mosaic from a plurality of image
templates. App. Br. 9-10.
Because we do not agree with Appellants that deficiencies exist in the
rejection of parent claim 13, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
19, 20, and 22—31 over Paul, Bogart, Miller, Doll, Siegler, and Mizoguchi,
for the same reasons expressed with respect to the rejection of claim 13,
supra.
Claim 21
Appellants do not provide separate argument for the patentability of
claim 21, remarking only that Bunting fails to remedy the deficiencies of the
base combination of references (Paul, Bogart, Miller, and Doll) with respect
to assembling a mosaic from a plurality of image templates. App. Br. 10.
Because we do not agree with Appellants that deficiencies exist in the
rejection of parent claim 13, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21
over Paul, Bogart, Miller, Doll, Siegler, Mizoguchi, and Bunting, for the
same reasons expressed with respect to the rejection of claim 13, supra.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Paul, Bogart, Miller, and Doll teaches
instructions for processing a group of images in order to assemble a mosaic
from a plurality of image templates for displaying on a computing device.
2. The combination of Paul, Bogart, Miller, and Doll teaches
instructions for providing a navigation user interface via processor to a user
8
Appeal 2017-001206
Application 14/198,301
to permit the user to use a touchscreen to scroll through pictures in the
mosaic by the user swiping a finger across the screen of the client.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13—31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
9