Ex Parte JEON

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2017

13106211 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 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.
13/106,211 05/12/2011 Yong Joon JEON 0203-0375 4797
09/19/201768103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
DUCKWORTH, JIANMEI F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2017 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONG JOON JEON
Appeal 2017-000077
Application 13/106,211
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BETH Z. SHAW, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—6, and 8—17, which are the only claims
currently pending in this application. App. Br. 14—18. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
Appellant’s application relates to a chat window message list display
method. Spec. 12.
Appeal 2017-000077
Application 13/106,211
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A message list display method for a mobile
terminal, the method comprising:
loading, when a contact item that represents a messaging
counterpart is selected, only a first set of one or more messages
comprising a predefined number of messages communicated
most recently with the messaging counterpart among a plurality
of messages communicated with the messaging counterpart;
arranging the predefined number of the most recently
communicated messages in descending order of communicated
times in a direction from a first edge to a second edge of a
screen, wherein the second edge is located opposite the first
edge;
displaying a scroll bar region and a scroll bar situated in
the scroll bar region at the first edge, wherein a length of the
scroll bar corresponds to the predetermined number of
messages;
loading a second set of one or more messages comprising
a remainder of the plurality of messages after the scroll bar is
displayed; and
shrinking, while the remainder of the plurality of
messages are being loaded, the scroll bar in length according to
a current number of the messages that have been loaded such
that a length of the scroll bar is inversely proportional to the
current number of loaded messages,
wherein the shrinking comprises maintaining the position
of the scroll bar in the scroll bar region at the first edge.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3—5, 12—14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuei (US 2010/0211917 Al; Aug. 19,
2010), further in view of Chinnam et al. (US 2010/0057854 Al; Mar. 4,
2010; hereinafter Chinnam) and Schaller et al. (US 2009/0070707 Al; Mar.
2
Appeal 2017-000077
Application 13/106,211
12, 2009; hereinafter Schaller) and Pizzo et al. (US 2006/0004794 Al; Jan.
5, 2006; hereinafter Pizzo). Final Act. 2—13.
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 8—11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuei, Chinnam, Schaller, Pizzo, and
Forutanpour et al. (US 2010/0281400 Al; Nov. 4, 2010; hereinafter
Forutanpour). Final Act. 14—23.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error.
App. Br. 4—12; Reply Br. 2—12. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments
in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. See Ans. 31—39, Final Act.
2—26. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellant argues that Tsuei fails to teach “loading a predefined
number of messages,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 7. The
Examiner finds Tsuei teaches the claimed “loading a predefined number of
messages communicated most recently with the messaging counterpart,” in
paragraph 71 and Figure 11 of Tsuei. Final Act. 3; Ans. 34. We agree with
the Examiner that Tsuei teaches loading, into the display buffer, the most
recently communicated messages with a certain contact. Id.', Tsuei 171
(“the communication device firstly displays unread messages of the
contact”). In response to Appellant’s arguments, in the Answer, the
Examiner further explains that Schaller also teaches loading “a predefined
3
Appeal 2017-000077
Application 13/106,211
number” of messages displayed on a single screen. Ans. 34, 37—38. We
agree with the Examiner that Schaller’s Figures 2A and 2B illustrate that
only a predefined number of messages (i.e., the 14 messages shown in
Figures 2A and 2B) are displayed on a single screen. Id. After a user scrolls
down, more messages may be displayed, but only a certain number fit on the
single screen.
Appellant also argues that Pizzo fails to teach a single screen being a
predefined number of messages or that the second set comprises a remainder
of the plurality of messages. App. Br. 9. The Examiner finds that Pizzo
discloses loading a second set of messages comprising a remainder of
messages after the scroll bar is displayed. Final Act. 6; Ans. 35. Pizzo
teaches “every time the user scrolls or otherwise requests information, a
query can be executed against the view table . . . and just brings back the set
of records that a user needs to display on their current screen.” Pizzo 59;
Ans. 35. We agree with the Examiner’s findings because Pizzo teaches an
embodiment that includes displaying a predefined number of messages (on
the screen in Figure 5), and loading a second set of messages after the scroll
bar is displayed, because as the user scrolls, the remainder of the messages
are displayed.
Appellant also argues that Tsuei only teaches “displaying” messages,
as opposed to “loading” messages. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 7. The Examiner
finds that Tseui teaches loading a predefined number of messages into a
display buffer. Final Act. 3. We agree with the Examiner that Tsuei teaches
loading messages because Tseui shows in Figure 7 that three most recent
messages were loaded into the display buffer. See Tseui Fig. 7; Final Act. 3.
Appellant does not rebut this finding other than to argue generally, without
4
Appeal 2017-000077
Application 13/106,211
further explanation, that Tseui’s “displaying” is not the same as the claimed
“loading.” Reply Br. 7. In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of
technical reasoning to the contrary, the Examiner’s finding is reasonable and
we find no reversible error.
Although Appellant argues that paragraph 64 of Pizzo teaches only
concurrent loading (App. Br. 9), the Examiner points out that the disclosure
in paragraph 64 is “in addition to the teaching” of other embodiments. Ans.
36. Moreover, the Examiner also explains an additional interpretation of
paragraph 64, concluding that an ordinary skilled artisan would read the
paragraph as loading different sets of content at different times. Id. We are
not persuaded that this additional interpretation is unreasonable.
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that Pizzo teaches additional
screens of data are in response to a user sending query for a next page of
results. Reply Br. 9. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s characterization
of Pizzo. Rather, Pizzo states that “every time the user scrolls,” a query is
executed against a view table to display records on a current screen. Pizzo 1
59 (emphasis added). Pizzo’s paragraph 59 does not require that a user enter
a separate “query.”
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments, and
have only reiterated the same arguments presented against claim 1, the
remaining pending claims fall for the same reasons discussed for claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal 2017-000077
Application 13/106,211
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—6, and 8—17 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6