Ex Parte Pikkujamsa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2016

11954845 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111954,845 12/12/2007
10949 7590 07/27/2016
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
Kalle PIKKUJAMSA
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.
042933/407662 4621
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2016 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 KALLE PIKKUJAMSA, JUKKA LINJAMA,
JURA KELA, P ANU KORPIP AA, SANNA KALLIO,
and TAPANI RANTAKOKKO
Appeal2014-008931
Application 11/954,845
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-13, 15, and 32--44, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 6, 14, and 16-31 have been canceled. App. Br. 12-14.
Appeal2014-008931
Application 11/954,845
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a user interface having realistic
physical effects. Abstract. Claims 38 and 44 are illustrative and read as
follows:
38. An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least
one memory including computer program code, the at least one
memory and the computer program code configured to, with the
processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
detect a motion;
cause display of an emulated movement of a graphical
representation of a first object according to the detected motion and a
physical characteristic associated with the object, wherein said
physical characteristic affects at least a rate at which the first object
moves on the display;
detect an emulated collision between the first object and a
second object, wherein the second object visually indicates an
associated function; and
cause execution of the function on a data value associated with
the first object.
44. An apparatus according to claim 38,
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program
code are further configured to cause the apparatus to at least:
receive an indication of an incoming communication to the
apparatus;
cause the first object to display a visual indication of the
communication; and
cause the second object to display a visual indication of the
associated function, wherein the associated function initiates a
response to the incoming communication.
2
Appeal2014-008931
Application 11/954,845
REJECTION
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15, and 32--44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Culbert et al. (US 2009/0088204 Al;
published Apr. 2, 2009) in view of Vymenets et al. (US 2009/0122018 Al;
published May 14, 2009). Final Act. 2-7.
ANALYSIS
35U.S.C.§103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15, and 32--43
We have considered Appellants' arguments with regard to claims 1-5,
7-13, 15, and 32--43, but do not find them persuasive of error. We agree
with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions
with regard to these claims, as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
In rejecting representative claim 38, the Examiner found that Culbert
teaches or suggests all of the recited limitations except "causing display of
an emulated movement of a graphical representation of a first object on said
display wherein a physical characteristic affects at least a rate at which the
first object moves on the display," "detect an emulated collision between the
first object and a second object having an associated function," and "cause
execution of the function on a data value associated with the first object."
Final Act. 2-3, 6 (citing Culbert Figs. 3, 5, 8, 10, 14, i-fi-159, 69-72, 75-77,
79). The Examiner relied on Vymenets in combination with Culbert as
teaching or suggesting those limitations. Id. at 3--4 (citing Vymenets Fig.
15, ,-r,-r 31-33, 50-53).
3
Appeal2014-008931
Application 11/954,845
Appellants contend the cited portions of Culbert and Vymenets do not
disclose the limitation "detect an emulated collision between the first object
and a second object, wherein the second object visually indicates an
associated function," because hotspot 210 of Vymenets does not visually
indicate an associated function. App. Br. 8-10.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of error because
they are misplaced and do not address the teachings of the references relied
upon by the Examiner to address this claim limitation. Appellants'
arguments are directed to hotspot 210 of Vymenets, but the Examiner relied
on ICON 2 in Vymenets as teaching or suggesting the recited "second
object." See Final Act. 3; Ans. 2 (citing Vymenets Figs. 1, 15, i1i131, 51-
53). The Examiner found that ICON 2 visually indicates an associated
function because it is described as one of the application icons 202,
illustrated in Figure 1 of Vymenets, which the Examiner found visually
indicate the functions associated with them. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2 (citing
Vymenets Figs. 1, 15, i1i131, 51-53).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that "applications are not
functions." Reply Br. 2. Appellants' argument does not persuade us of
error. We agree with the Examiner that the term "associated function"
recited in claim 38 is broad enough to cover application icons 202 of
Vymenets. The Examiner's interpretation of "associated function" is
consistent with Appellant's description in the Specification that the functions
associated with the phone call 407 object and the send message 408 object
"are clear from the appearance of the graphical representation of the object."
Spec. i192, Fig. 4. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited
"function associated with an object" encompasses a graphical representation
4
Appeal2014-008931
Application 11/954,845
of the object from which the function is clear, which reads on application
icons 202 disclosed in Vymenets. Appellants have not shown persuasively
that this interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the
Specification. See Reply Br. 2. Nor has Appellant persuasively shown that
it would not have been clear to an artisan of ordinary skill what are the
functions associated with the application icons 202 (for example, the
depicted "Internet" icon). 3 See Reply Br. 2.
Appellants further argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that
paragraphs 51-53 ofVymenets, relied on by the Examiner, do not teach or
suggest that a function is performed as a result of the collision, as the
independent claims require. Reply Br. 2. Appellants, however, have waived
this argument because they presented it for the first time in the Reply Brief,
without a showing of good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012);
accord Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010
(informative opinion) ("[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make
arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to
rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not."). We note, however, that the
plain language of claim 38 does not require that the function be executed "as
a result of the collision" involving the first and second objects, as Appellant
argues. See Reply Br. 2. The disputed limitation requires only that the
claimed apparatus "cause execution of the function on a data value
associated with the first object." App. Br. 16.
3 We observe that Appellant's Specification describes that an "associated
function" can be an open operation. Spec. i-f 19.
5
Appeal2014-008931
Application 11/954,845
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of Culbert and Vymenets teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 38.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
representative claim 38, as well as claims 1-5, 7-13, 15, and 32-37, and 39-
43, not argued separately.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 44
The Examiner rejected claim 44, which depends from claim 38, as
obvious over the combination of Culbert and Vymenets. Final Act. 7 (citing
Culbert Figs. 1, 11, i-fi-14, 31, 43, 51-53).
Appellants contend the cited portions of Culbert and Vymenets do not
teach or suggest initiating a response to an incoming communication, as
claim 44 requires. App. Br. 11. The Examiner did not provide a response in
the Answer to Appellants' contention.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown with
sufficient clarity in the Final Action how Figure 1 and paragraphs 51-53 of
Vymenets teach or suggest that the associated function initiates a response to
an incoming communication. Thus, on the record before us, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 44.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-13, 15,
and 32--43.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 44.
6
Appeal2014-008931
Application 11/954,845
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7