11237203 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2012)

Ex Parte Kaplan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 16, 2012

11237203 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte DIEGO KAPLAN, BILHAN KIRBAS, and JONATHAN K. KIES __________ Appeal 2009-015112 Application 11/237,203 Technology Center 3600 ___________ Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, THOMAS S. HAHN, and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015112 Application 11/237,203 - 2 - SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, and 24: Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over King (US 2002/0055373 A1; May 9, 2002), Inui (US 2005/0060670 A1; Mar. 17, 2005), and Gregg (US 6,353,449 B1; Mar. 5, 2002). Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Piccionelli (US 2005/0221841 A1; Oct. 6, 2005), Inui, Farber (US 5,819,284; Oct. 6, 1998), and either Ross (US 2004/0220943 A1; Nov. 4, 2004) or Gregg. We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants disclose a screensaver system. (Spec. ¶ 7). The user assigns different information categories to different geographic locations. (Spec. ¶ 36). The screensaver displays information in accord with the categories assigned to the device’s current location. (Id.). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. King King discloses a screensaver system. (King, Abstract). A user assigns different information categories to different screensaver pictures. (King ¶¶ 43-44). The screensaver displays information in accord with the categories assigned to the currently displayed/selected picture. (King ¶ 40). Appeal 2009-015112 Application 11/237,203 - 3 - 2. Inui Inui discloses a screensaver system. (Inui, Title). A user assigns different screensaver pictures to different geographic locations. (Inui ¶¶ 56- 57). The screensaver displays the picture assigned to the device’s current location. (Id.). § 103(a) REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, AND 24 OVER KING, INUI, AND GREGG 1. Claims 1-9 Appellants argue independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9 as a group. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis on the only limitation at issue: 1. A method for a position sensitive screensaver on a mobile wireless communication device, the method comprising: acquiring a position for the mobile wireless communication device; reporting the position to a network; receiving information for selected information categories based on the reported position, a selection of the selected information categories based on a user designation for the position; and, displaying the received information through the position sensitive screensaver on the mobile wireless communication device in accordance with a user defined display location and format. Relying on the emphasized limitation, Appellants argue (Reply 5): [T]he combination of King and Inui would merely yield a device in which a specific, predetermined screen saver would be displayed when the device was in a specific position, and the screen saver that would be displayed would have “content relevant information” that was related to the contents of the screen saver (e.g., picture file). However, notably absent from Appeal 2009-015112 Application 11/237,203 - 4 - this combination is any notion of receiving or displaying information for selected information categories that are selected based on position of the device, as recited in Appellants’ claims. We agree with the asserted scope of King and Inui insofar that, in combination, they suggest a device that both selects a screensaver picture assigned to the device’s location and displays information in accord with information categories assigned to that selected/displayed picture. We disagree with the contention, however, that such a device does not satisfy the at-issue limitation. In the suggested device, the selection of information categories (and accorded display of information) is determined by the device’s location, the user designation of a screensaver picture to that location, and the user designation of information categories to that picture. Because the location is a determinative factor in the selection of information categories, the suggested device clearly receives/displays “information for selected information categories that are selected based on position of the device, as recited in Appellants’ claims” (id.). We note that, contrary to Appellants’ above argument, the claimed selection of information categories is more particularly “based on a user designation for the position.” In the suggested device, the selection of information categories is based on the user’s designation of a screensaver picture to the device’s location, which also is a “user designation for the position” as required. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over King, Inui, and Gregg. Appeal 2009-015112 Application 11/237,203 - 5 - 2. Claims 10, 12-14, and 16 Appellants argue independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 12- 14 and 16 as a group. The arguments do not raise further issues for consideration. We note, however, that claim 10 requires a user designation of information categories for the device’s position; not just “a user designation for the position,” as recited by claim 1. The suggested device satisfies this further limitation of claim 10 in that the user assigns information categories to the position-dependent screensaver pictures and, therefore, designates information categories for positions (including the current location) as required. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 10, 12- 14, and 16 over King, Inui, and Gregg. 3. Claims 17, 19-21, 23, and 24 Appellants argue independent claim 17 and its dependent claims 19- 21, 23, and 24 as a group. The arguments and the addressed language of claim 17 do not raise further issues for consideration. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 17, 19- 21, 23, and 24 over King, Inui, and Gregg. § 103(a) REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, AND 24 OVER PICCIONELLI, INUI, FARBER, AND EITHER ROSS OR GREGG In view of our sustaining the obviousness rejection of claims 1-10, 12- 14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, and 24 over King, Inui, and Gregg, we do not reach Appeal 2009-015112 Application 11/237,203 - 6 - the obviousness rejection of these same claims over Piccionelli, Inui, Farber, and either Ross or Gregg.1 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, and 24 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 babc 1 See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching other rejections after upholding an anticipation rejection).