Ex Parte Hyatt

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2012

11206436 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 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.
11/206,436 08/18/2005 Edward Craig Hyatt 9314-126 5171
20792 7590 08/29/2012
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
PAULA, CESAR B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2012 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 EDWARD CRAIG HYATT

________________

Appeal 2010-004621
Application 11/206,436
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004621
Application 11/206,436

2
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-23, which stand rejected as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Munte (US 2005/0205660 A1, September 22,
2005) (“Munte”).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention is directed to methods, devices and computer
program products for saving content of a mobile terminal display. Abstract
[0057]. Independent claim 1 recites:

1. A method of saving content of a mobile terminal
display, comprising:

receiving a request to store the content of a display
associated with the mobile terminal;

generating an image file including the content of the
display responsive to the received request; and

storing the generated image file in a screen content
folder regardless of a type of the content and/or a source of the
content.

App. Br. 12.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of independent claims 1, 9,
Appeal 2010-004621
Application 11/206,436

3
and 16, and dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, and 23.
(See App. Br. 5, 8).
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 2
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of dependent claims 2, 10, and
17. (See App. Br. 8).
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 5
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of dependent claims 5, 13, and
20. (See App. Br. 9).
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 6
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of dependent claims 6 and 21.
(See App. Br. 10).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).

ISSUES
Claim 1
Issue 1: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Munte discloses saving
an image of the display of the mobile terminal.

Issue 2: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Munte teaches storing
the generated image file in a screen content folder regardless of a type of
the content and/or a source of the content.

Claim 2
Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Munte teaches
automatically generating a text file including any text included in the
captured image file and storing the text file in the screen content folder.

Appeal 2010-004621
Application 11/206,436

4
Claim 5
Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Munte discloses
processing the image file and/or the text file to extract information
therefrom; and providing the extracted information to an application
program for use therein.

Claim 6

Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Munte discloses the
application program comprises a contacts database, a calendar, a browser,
a chat client and/or a bookmark storage unit.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Munte
anticipates the limitation of claim 1 reciting a request to store the content of
a display associated with the mobile terminal. App. Br. 6. According to
Appellant, the Examiner erred because, whereas Munte teaches saving an
image of a paper record through a camera or scanner, the method of claim 1
discloses saving an image of the display of the mobile terminal. Id.
Appellant further points out that some embodiments of claim 1 allow the
mobile terminal to save any information which can be displayed on the
mobile terminal display into an image file. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner responds by pointing out that Munte teaches the use of
a wireless phone to scan, display, and then store an image of a paper receipt
document, i.e., the content of a display, within the phone's memory. Ans. 6.
The Examiner finds that a document image clearly comprises “content of a
display” and therefore anticipates the limitation at issue. Id.
Appeal 2010-004621
Application 11/206,436

5
We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive and adopt it as our
own. Munte teaches the use of a camera connected to a wireless device to
capture the image of the document and display the content of the document.
Munte, p. 3, ¶ [0035]. It is this displayed image which is subsequently
stored in the device’s memory. Id. We therefore conclude that the
Examiner did not err in finding that Munte teaches the limitation of claim
reciting “receiving a request to store the content of a display associated with
the mobile terminal.”
Appellant next argues that Munte does not teach the limitation of
claim 1 reciting storing the generated image file in a screen content folder
regardless of a type of the content and/or a source of the content. App. Br.
7. Appellant contends that Munte teaches only the storing of content
comprising “all sorts of paper records,” and therefore cannot generate and
store the image file, regardless of the type or source of the content. App.
Br. 7-8.
The Examiner responds that Munte teaches the storage of the image
file on the phone’s memory. Ans. 6. The Examiner therefore finds that
regardless of whether the source of the image is a scanner or a camera, the
image file ends up being saved to the device's memory. Id. Consequently,
the Examiner finds that Munte discloses the limitation of claim 1 reciting
storing the generated image file in a screen content folder regardless of a
type of the content and/or a source of the content. Id.
We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive and adopt it as our
own. Munte teaches that “[t]he data entry application stores the picture (of
the captured display content) into a memory of the mobile wireless device.
Munte, p. 3, ¶ [0035]. Munte, therefore, explicitly teaches the storage of
Appeal 2010-004621
Application 11/206,436

6
the image file created from the screen display into the mobile device’s
memory. We consequently conclude that the Examiner did not err in
finding that Munte anticipates the limitation of claim 1 reciting storing the
generated image file in a screen content folder regardless of a type of the
content and/or a source of the content. Id.

Claim 2
Appellant argues that the Examiner also erred in finding that Munte
taught the limitation of claim 2 reciting automatically generating a text file
associated with the generated image file, the text file including any text
included in the image file; and storing the generated text file in the screen
content folder. App. Br. 8. Appellant contends that Munte appears to
discuss creating an image file of a paper record, and also saving pre-
populated tags that may have been filled in with text from the image. App.
Br. 9. Hence, according to Appellant, Munte appears to disclose saving the
tags in the same file as the image. Id.
The Examiner disagrees, finding that Munte teaches the use of optical
character recognition (OCR) software to extract text used for filling out a
tag text form or application stored on the memory. App. Br. 6. The phone
reads the image and converts the textual information discovered on the
image, into ASCII text, which in tum is used to populate the fields on the
textual form. Id.
We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive and adopt it as our
own. Consequently, we find that the Examiner did not err in finding that
Munte anticipates the limitation of claim 2 reciting automatically generating
a text file associated with the generated image file, the text file including
Appeal 2010-004621
Application 11/206,436

7
any text included in the image file; and storing the generated text file in the
screen content folder.

Claim 5
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Munte
discloses the limitation of claim 5 reciting processing the image file and/or
the text file to extract information therefrom; and providing the extracted
information to an application program for use therein. App. Br. 10.
Appellant contends that Munte, at most, appears to disclose extracting the
information and filling out an application by prepopulating some tagged
fields and does not meet the limitation’s requirement of providing the
extracted information to an application program for use therein. Id.
The Examiner responds that Munte discloses the use of OCR with
respect to the document image, in order to extract text used. Ans. 7. The
Examiner finds that the text thus extracted is then provided to the mobile
device for filling out a tag text form and creating an electronic record to be
transmitted to a server. Id.
We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive and adopt it as our
own. Munte teaches that “OCR software can be used to automatically
analyze the text on the paper record image and pre-populate the tag texts
which the customer then only needs to control and eventually correct 204.”
Munte, p. 4, ¶ [0035] (boldface in original). Munte also discloses that from
all of the entered tag texts, the record image and the additional data, the
data entry application creates an electronic record which is then transmitted
to the server via a mobile communication network. Id. Consequently, we
find that the Examiner did not err in finding that Munte discloses
Appeal 2010-004621
Application 11/206,436

8
processing the image file and/or the text file to extract information
therefrom; and providing the extracted information to an application
program for use therein.

Claim 6
Lastly, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that
Munte discloses the limitation of claim 6 reciting the application program
comprises a contacts database, a calendar, a browser, a chat client and/or a
bookmark storage unit. App. Br. 10. Appellant contends that Munte does
not disclose any of the applications listed in claim 6.
The Examiner answers that Munte discloses “displaying--browsing--
and filling out the tag text form.” Ans. 7 (emphasis in original).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Claim 6 depends
from claim 5. As we have noted supra, Munte teaches processing the
image file and/or the text file to extract information therefrom; and
providing the extracted information to an application program for use
therein. The limitations recited in claim 6, including a contacts database, a
calendar, a browser, a chat client and/or a bookmark storage unit, all
constitute species of application programs of the type contemplated by the
limitations of claim 5. See, e.g., In re Stryker, 435 F.2d 1340, 1341-42
(C.C.P.A. 1971). Consequently, since we have found that Munte discloses
providing the extracted information to an application program, Munte
anticipates the limitation to providing the extracted information to a
contacts database, a calendar, a browser, a chat client and/or a bookmark
storage unit. Consequently, the Examiner did not err in finding that the
limitations of claim 6 are anticipated by Munte.
Appeal 2010-004621
Application 11/206,436

9

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Munte.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Munte 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ke