Ex Parte Singhal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2018

14044697 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/044,697
103550 7590
Tara Chand Singhal
P.O. Box 5075
Torrance, CA 90510
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/02/2013 Tara Chand Singhal
12/14/2018
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.
l l 195.281F 2195
EXAMINER
KUMAR, ANIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2018 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):
singhal@att.net
chand@internetpromise.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TARA CHAND SINGHAL
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to an apparatus and method for a
simplified menu screen in handheld mobile wireless devices that is used to
reduce the complexity of the menu screen. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for an improved user interface in a handheld
mobile wireless device, wherein the device has a CPU, a memory, a
device operating system, a display/touch screen, and a large number
of applications hosted in the device and selected there from via a
display of plurality of application icons on the display/touch screen,
the improved user interface, comprising:
a user interface logic resident in the memory and operating in
the CPU, wherein the user interface logic causes a simplified menu
screen display to be displayed on the display/touch screen in lieu of an
original menu screen of the device from the device operating system,
when the device is first activated, wherein the simplified menu screen
displays a selection of only three and up to five application icons as
menu choices;
the user interface logic maintains data in the memory of the
device related to only up to five menu choices, wherein the selection
of the up to five menu choices from the large number of application
choices is derived from either a highest average number of selections
of these specific menu choices in a general population or a highest
average number of selections of these specific menu choices by a
device user; and
the simplified menu screen displays only up to five menu
selection choices, thereby minimizing the complexity of the original
menu screen with the large number of application icons and a desired
application item selection there from, for an improved user interface
in the handheld mobile wireless device.
2
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Saito et al. (US 2008/0092082 Al;
published Apr. 17, 2008) ("Saito") and Higuchi (US 2012/0192113 Al;
published July 26, 2012).
Claims 3, 5, 8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Saito, Higuchi, and
Agnetta et al. (US 2014/0333530 Al; published Nov. 13, 2014) ("Agnetta").
Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Saito, Higuchi, and Li et al. (US
2015/0113457 Al; published Apr. 23, 2015) ("Li").
Claims 15 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Saito, Higuchi, Agnetta, and Bamford et al. (US
2014/0101582 Al; published Apr. 10, 2014) ("Bamford").
ANALYSIS
After consideration of Appellant's arguments, we agree with the
Examiner. We refer to and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
set forth in the Examiner's Answer and in the action from which this appeal
was taken. See Final Act. 3-20, Ans. 3-20. Our discussion here will be
limited to the following points of emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellant generally asserts that the Examiner has misapplied the
obviousness test under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). App.
3
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
Br. 12-13. Appellant argues the combination of the cited prior art does not
teach or suggest
the user interface logic maintains data in the memory of the
device related to only up to five menu choices, wherein the selection
of the up to five menu choices from the large number of application
choices is derived from either a highest average number of selections
of these specific menu choices in a general population or a highest
average number of selections of these specific menu choices by a
device user; and
the simplified menu screen displays only up to five menu
selection choices, thereby minimizing the complexity of the
original menu screen with the large number of application icons
and a desired application item selection there from, for an
improved user interface in the handheld mobile wireless device.
App. Br. 14--15 ( emphasis omitted). Appellant argues Saito is directed to a
user settable option of selecting from either a normal mode or a simple
mode, where the simple mode "has features for use with older folks with
vision issues and thus provides for a large font setting of simple mode menu
items" and "Higuchi is directed to teaching how to display menu icons on
two different display screens that are hinged together like in a paper book."
App. Br. 15-16; see also Reply Br. 3-7. Appellant further argues the
"Examiner errs under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to have
equated display of menu icons on Saito' s simple mode and display of menu
items on Higuchi' s two hinged display screen with the [ disputed
limitations]." App. Br. 16. Therefore, according to Appellant, the
combination does not teach the disputed limitations. App. Br. 16.
Appellant further argues "there is no reason to combine the cited
combination of the prior art" and "[t]he prior art combination in fact, teaches
away from the claimed subject matter." App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
4
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
Appellant also argues the "claimed subject matter would not be obvious, as
the claimed subject matter is directed to a wholly different subject matter
directed to human-factors science or aspects of man machine interface and in
reducing complexity or simplifying that human interface." App. Br. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions. The Examiner primarily relies on
Saito to teach or suggest the disputed limitations, but relies on Higuchi to
teach or suggest "wherein the selection of the up to five menu choices from
the large number of application choices is derived from either a highest
average number of selections of these specific menu choices in a general
population or a highest average number of selections of these specific menu
choices by a device user." See Final Act. 3---6, Ans. 17. The Examiner finds
motivation to combine the references in Saito, which "clearly anticipates the
need for customized user interface ... that can easily be extended to creating
[a] user interface based on most frequently used applications." Final Act. 6.
Saito is generally directed to a mobile terminal that has a detailed
normal mode for experienced users and a simple mode for inexperienced
users, where the user may select which mode they want to use. Saito
Abstract, ,r,r 3, 21. Saito describes that "[ normal] mode includes first
number of menus and the [simple] mode includes second number of menus
smaller than that of the [normal] mode." Saito Abstract, Figs. 3, 4, ,r 25.
Saito depicts simple mode examples showing three menu items. Saito Figs.
3, 4. Higuchi generally describes a portable device with two display areas,
where the display priority of an application icon may be based on how
frequently the application is launched by a user. Higuchi ,r,r 99, 100.
5
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
Based on the foregoing disclosure, we agree with the Examiner the
combination of Saito and Higuchi teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations. Appellant has not sufficiently explained why the Examiner's
findings are in error. In particular, Appellant has not persuasively addressed
the Examiner's findings or persuasively addressed the Examiner's reasoning
for the combination. For example, Appellant's arguments regarding Higuchi
are not directed to the disclosure the Examiner relies upon, which is
displaying application icons based upon the frequency by which that
application is launched by the user. Rather, Appellant's arguments are
focused on the general two hinged display screen. In addition, Appellant has
not persuasively explained why Saito' s simple mode does not teach or
suggest Appellant's claimed simplified menu screen display. Although in
the Reply Brief Appellant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not
equate Saito' s "simple mode" with Appellant's "simplified menu screen,"
(Reply Br. 3) Appellant does not persuasively explain why. As discussed
above, Saito explicitly teaches the simple mode displays fewer menu items
than the normal mode, and teaches displaying three menu items in simple
mode. See Saito Abstract, Figs. 3, 4.
With regard to the combination, Appellant's arguments appear to be
holding the Examiner to the teaching, suggestion, or motivation ("TSM")
standard where there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the
references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference
teachings. See Reply Br. 8. However, such a standard is not required. KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,415 (2007) ("We begin by rejecting
the rigid [ application and requirement of a TSM to combine known elements
6
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
in order to show obviousness]"). The proper inquiry is whether the Examiner
has articulated adequate reasoning based on a rational underpinning to
explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
combine Saito and Higuchi. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We find the
Examiner has done so and Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner's findings.
Nor has Appellant explained why there is a "teaching away." A
teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1 and independent claim 6, which recites commensurate
limitations, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10, which were not
separately argued.
Claim 11
Independent claim 11 is similar to independent claim 1, but further
recites "the user interface logic uses a part of the display screen space as a
live feed display space for displaying a changing/live content to include one
or more of a date/time, weather, live event video, live news feed, and live
stock data." The Examiner relies on Agnetta to teach or suggest this
limitation. Final Act. 7-9 (citing Agnetta Figs. 66, 78 (weather), Figs. 1 lD,
68, 13A (time), Fig. 78 (live event video), Fig. 13A (live news feed)).
Appellant presents similar arguments to the arguments made with
respect to claim 1, which we are not persuaded by for the same reasons as
set forth above. See App. Br. 18-19. In addition, Appellant argues the
7
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
combination of Saito, Higuchi, and Agnetta does not teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. App. Br. 18-19. Appellant argues although Agnetta "is
directed to interfaces for electronic devices, within that very broad
classification, it is exclusively directed to interfaces using gestures." App.
Br. 20-23. Appellant further argues "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art
would not consider Agnetta's Carousal Tray as 'a simplified menu screen' of
claimed subject matter." App. Br. 23-24. In addition, Appellant argues in
Agnetta, the "top and lower parts of the screen are directed to the same menu
selection and display" whereas in the claim "the top part and lower part of
the screen content have no connection or relationship." App. Br. 25; see
also Reply Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions. Agnetta describes a screen with an
upper and lower portion, where content associated with an item having focus
in the top portion may be displayed in the lower portion. Agnetta ,r 154; see
also Agnetta Fig. 1 lE. Agnetta provides many examples of the types of
content that may be displayed, including date, time, videos, and weather.
Agnetta Fig. llD, 13A, 13B, 66, 68, 78. Based on this disclosure, we agree
with the Examiner that Agnetta teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Appellant has not sufficiently explained why Agnetta does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation. Rather, Appellant argues Agnetta does not
teach the claimed simplified menu screen; however, the Examiner relies on
Saito to teach or suggest the simplified menu screen, not Agnetta. See Final
Act. 3-5, 7. As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Saito
teaches or suggests the claimed simplified menu screen. Moreover,
Appellant's argument that "the top part and lower part of the screen content
8
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
have no connection or relationship" is not commensurate with the scope of
the claim, which does not require that the top and lower part of the screen
content have no relationship.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 11. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 12, 13, and 14, which were
not separately argued.
Claim 16
Appellant argues the combination of Saito, Higuchi, and Agnetta does
not teach or suggest
the initial menu display provides for the display of at least two
different display spaces, a display space A and a display space B;
the display space A displays a limited number of menu icons
that are based on either a highest average number of selections of
these specific menu choices in a general population or a highest
average number of selections of these specific menu choices by a
device user and the display space B displays a changing and live
digital content, whether the content is pre-stored in the device itself or
received live in the device from a wireless network,
as recited in independent claim 16. App. Br. 26-32. Appellant presents
similar arguments as those argued with respect to claims 1 and 11. App. Br.
26-32.
The Examiner relies on Agnetta to teach or suggest "the initial menu
display provides for the display of at least two different display spaces, a
display space A and a display space B" and "the display space B displays a
changing and live digital content, whether the content is pre-stored in the
device itself or received live in the device from a wireless network," and on
9
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
the combination of Saito and Higuchi to teach or suggest the remaining
limitations. Final Act. 11. As discussed above, Agnetta teaches a screen
with content displayed on an upper portion and lower portion, which, we
agree teaches the claimed display space A and display space B. E.g.,
Agnetta Fig. 1 lE. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments for the
same reasons as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 11. In
particular, Appellant does not persuasively address the Examiner's findings,
nor does Appellant address the combination of the references as relied upon
by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 16. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 17, 18, and 20, which were
not separately argued.
Claims 4 and 9
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites "a. wherein the up to five
menu icons is five menu icons that are displayed are arranged in two groups
of menu icons, one group with three menu icons and another group with two
menu icons; b. the two groups of menu icons are displayed either in a
vertical orientation or in a horizontal orientation on the display screen of the
device." Claim 9 depends from claim 6 and recites commensurate
limitations. The Examiner relies on Li to teach or suggest these limitations.
Final Act. 12-13 (citing Li Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, ,r,r 83, 112).
Appellant argues Li "is directed to sorting icons for display based on,
first on type of icon and second on frequency of use of the icon," but, in
10
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
contrast, the "claimed subject matter is directed to mere display arrangement
of five icons in two groups and not their selection." App. Br. 33.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions. Li describes an "icon sorting and
displaying method, which can perform sorting according to both icon types
and frequency of use so as to simplify user operations of searching for and
selecting a frequently used icon." Li Abstract. Li further describes "sorting
icons by type along a first direction; sorting icons of a same type by
frequency of use along a second direction; and displaying the sorted icons on
a screen." Id. Figure 3 of Li depicts a row of two icons ("Call" and "SMS")
and a row of three icons ("Music," "Camera," and "Gallery") in horizontal
orientation. Based on this disclosure, we agree Li teaches or suggests
displaying the menu icons as claimed. Appellant has not persuasively
explained why Li does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. The fact
that Li also sorts the icons, in addition to displaying them, is
inconsequential. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 311 F.3d 1369, 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[t]he transitional term 'comprising,' ... is synonymous
with "'including,' 'containing,' or 'characterized by,' [and] is open-ended
and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps."
(quoting MPEP, 8th ed., rev. 1 § 2111.03 (2003))).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 4 and 9.
Claims 15 and 19
Claim 15 depends from claim 11 and recites "wherein the live feed
display space is partitioned into multiple spaces that enable more than one
11
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
live feed to be displayed at the same time in the live feed display space."
Claim 19 depends from claim 16 and recites a commensurate limitation.
The Examiner relies on Bamford to teach or suggest the limitation. Final
Act. 14--15 ( citing Bamford Abstract, Fig. 2, ,r 41 ).
Appellant argues Bamford "is directed to displaying tiles, where each
tile displays a feed from a corresponding one of feed sources and displaying
tiles on multiple pages and when a new tile/feed is added by updating the
order of tiles/feeds on the multiple pages" whereas the claimed subject
matter "is directed to mere display arrangement of: wherein the live feed
display space is partitioned into multiple spaces that enable more than one
live feed to be displayed at the same time in the live feed display space."
App. Br. 34--45.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions. Bamford describes "providing a
plurality of tiles [ on a home screen]" where "each of the tiles display[ s] a
feed from a corresponding one of feed sources." Bamford Abstract. Based
on this disclosure, we agree Bamford teaches or suggests the displaying the
disputed limitation. Appellant has not persuasively explained why Bamford
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 15 and 19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1-
20.
12
Appeal2018-004512
Application 14/044,697
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
13