Ex Parte Schulz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

11725124 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111725,124 03/16/2007 Egan Schulz
45833 7590 06/29/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/APPLE
POBOX2938
SUITE 300
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
772.262US1 4842
EXAMINER
HUR,ECE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EGAN SCHULZ and JOSHUA D. F AGANS
Appeal2014-009138
Application 11/725, 1241
Technology Center 2100
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
40-75. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009138
Application 11/725, 124
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 40, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
40. A visual media editor, comprising:
a display space configured to display visual media files
of an editing project;
a plurality of user-interface controls to edit the visual
media files;
a plurality of bump regions arranged around an outer
edge of the display space, each bump region of the plurality of
bump regions being configured to receive assignment of one of
the plurality of user-interface controls as a bump control and,
subsequent to the assignment of the bump control, hide the
bump control until a pre-defined user input is detected to trigger
display of the bump control; and
a first bump control created in response to a user input
associating a first one of the plurality of user-interface controls
with a first bump region of the plurality of bump regions.
THE EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS
Claims 40, 45, 46, 49, 50, 52, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 69, 70, 73, and 74
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of
APERTURE: GETTING STARTED (Apple Computer, Inc., 2005) ("Aperture");
Nakano et al. (US 5,745,109; Apr. 28, 1998); and Simonyi (US 6,078,746;
June 20, 2000).
Claims 41, 42, 44, 51, 53, 54, 56, 63, 65, 66, 68, and 75 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Aperture,
Nakano, Simonyi, and Schmitt et al. (US 5,692,140; Nov. 25, 1997).
Claims 43, 55, and 67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Aperture, Nakano, Simonyi, Schmitt, and
Gennaro et al. (US 5,742,768; Apr. 21, 1998).
2
Appeal2014-009138
Application 11/725, 124
Claims 47, 48, 59, 60, 71, and 72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Aperture, Nakano, Simonyi,
Schmitt, and Strauss (US 6,057 ,844; May 2, 2000).
ANALYSIS
We have considered each of Appellants' arguments in view of the
Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record. Br. 7-20. We are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejections and adopt as our own the
Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reasons in the Examiner's Final
Rejection and the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following primarily
for emphasis.
With respect to independent claim 40, Appellants contend the
Examiner cited disparate references that "relate to a photo editor without a
bump region or assigned bump controls (Aperture), a menu display or
operating system that has a toolbar that may be hidden (Nakano), and an IP
tree editor with toolbars that may be marked invisible and positioned within
a widow (Simonyi)." Br. 12. Appellants argue none of the references
teaches bump regions, each configured to receive assignment of one of a
plurality of user-interface controls as a bump control where the user-
interface control is to edit a visual media file. Br. 10-12. Further,
Appellants argue a person of ordinary skill would not look to combine "a
photo editor, an operating system for a toolbar that can be hidden, and a
programming text editor for a toolbar that can be positioned within a
window" because the references bear no functional or operational
relationship to one another. Br. 12-14.
3
Appeal2014-009138
Application 11/725, 124
We disagree with Appellants' argument that Aperture fails to teach
user-interface controls arranged as a bump region. Appellants' Specification
describes bump regions or areas as follows:
Bump areas refer to designated regions on screen ...
where user interface controls are hidden while the visual media
editing user interface is in full-screen mode. Hiding in this
context generally means that the user interface controls are not
visible on screen, but may be accessed when the user hovers or
bumps his mouse into a bump area on the screen. . . . The user
accesses the user interface controls at bump areas by bumping
his mouse into the side of the screen.
Spec. i-f 36. Further, Appellants' Specification describes "bump controls" as
"those user interface controls that are hidden at a bump area. Basically,
bump controls can be any user interface control, such as toolbars, menu
items, or windows, available to a visual media editing application in a non-
full-screen mode." Spec. i-f 41. The Specification adds that "[w]hen the
visual media editing user interface 300 is in full-screen mode, the user can
move (or 'bump') his mouse pointer into bump area 310 to cause bump
control 311 to appear." Spec. i-f 42.
We agree with the Examiner that Aperture discloses the claimed
aspects of visual-media editing controls arranged in bump regions. See Final
Act. 5 (citing Aperture 32, 34, 45, 97, 156); Ans. 2-3. Similar to
Appellants' Specification, Aperture describes a "Full Screen mode" in which
toolbars are hidden by default and made visible when users move a pointer
to the top of the screen or press a shortcut key. Aperture 90, 94, 97, 98, 156;
compare Aperture 94 ("By default, the toolbar is hidden; to display it at the
top of the screen, move your pointer to the top of your primary screen."),
with Spec. 42 ("When the visual media editing user interface 300 is in full-
4
Appeal2014-009138
Application 11/725, 124
screen mode, the user can move (or 'bump') his mouse pointer into bump
area 310 to cause bump control 311 to appear.").
Beyond stating the unsupported position that Aperture discloses a
photo editor without bump regions (see Br. 12), Appellants do not
substantively address the teachings of Aperture. Further, without
substantively addressing the Examiner's combination of Aperture in view of
Nakano and Simonyi, Appellants' arguments attack Nakano and Simonyi
individually, and we find such arguments unpersuasive. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on
combinations of references").
We are similarly unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
references are "disparate" and would not have been combined by a person of
ordinary skill. See Br. 12. As noted above, Aperture discloses visual media
controls arranged in bump regions that are hidden by default, and Nakano
and Simonyi are additional evidence of known bump regions configured to
receive a plurality of user controls. See Final Act. 5---6; Nakano Fig. 6A,
7:58-8:9; Simonyi Fig. 7 A, 9:26-46. We agree with the Examiner that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
references' teachings as each reference evidences known arrangements and
capabilities of bump regions used to maximize screen space by hiding user
controls. See Final Act. 6, Ans. 3--4. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 40.
Regarding claims 41 and 43, Appellants argue, respectively, that
Schmitt and Gennaro fail to teach bump controls as claimed, but Appellants'
arguments are unpersuasive as Appellants do not substantively address the
5
Appeal2014-009138
Application 11/725, 124
teachings of Schmitt and Gennaro in combination with Aperture, Nakano,
and Simonyi. See Br. 15-16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 41 and 43.
Regarding claim 4 7, Appellants argue that Strauss, as well as the other
references, are "disparate" and a skilled artisan would not have combined
them. Br. 19-20. We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references'
teachings as each reference evidences known arrangements and capabilities
of bump regions used to maximize screen space by hiding user controls. See
Final Act. 17, Ans. 3--4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 47. Further, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 42, 44--
46, and 48-75, for which Appellants do not advance separate arguments.
Having considered each of Appellants' arguments in view of the
Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record, we are unpersuaded of
error and sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 40-75.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 40-75.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6