Ex Parte Sirpal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2017

13364492 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 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.
13/364,492 02/02/2012 Sanjiv Sirpal 6583-188 2187
111285 7590
Sheridan Ross P.C.
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
CHUANG, JUNG-MU T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2017 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):
edocket @ sheridanross .com
flexpatents-sr@ sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANJIV SIRPAL and MARTIN GIMPL
Appeal 2017-006900
Application 13/364,492
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, JUSTIN BUSCH, and CATHERINE SHIANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-006900
Application 13/364,492
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to phone
applications. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method, comprising:
providing a device having at least first and second
display, wherein the device executes a phone application, and
wherein the phone application is in a call log mode, wherein the
call log mode presents a call log with two or more records of
persons that were called or persons from which calls were
received;
receiving a first input to select a first person in the call
log, wherein a visual indicia associated with the first person in
the call log indicates that the first person was selected;
in a first display mode, presenting a first user interface
for a phone application on a first display, wherein the first
display mode includes displaying content in a landscape
orientation and displaying the first user interface on the first
display and a desktop on the second display,
wherein the first user interface displays the call log, and
wherein a visual indicia in the call log shows the first person as
selected in the call log;
receiving a second input from a user, wherein the input
includes a change in the display for the phone application,
wherein the second input is a gesture received in an off-display
gesture area;
determining that the second input requires a change to a
second display mode;
in response to the second input in the off-display gesture
area and the determination that the device is in a second display
mode:
presenting the call log on the first display;
and presenting a second user interface, associated with
the phone application, on the second display, wherein the
second user interface is detailed information about one or more
calls associated with the first person selected in the call log.
2
Appeal 2017-006900
Application 13/364,492
References and Rejections
Claims 1—2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kyocera (Kyocera Echo Phone January 2010,
www.engadget.com/gallery/kyocera-echo-hands-on/ (last visited Oct. 25,
2017)), Ambrose (US 2006/0002536 Al, pub. Jan. 5, 2006), Khoo (US
2008/0247128 Al, pub. Oct. 9, 2008), and Wilk (US 6,643,124 Bl, Nov. 4,
2003).
Claims 11—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kyocera, Ambrose, Parthasarathy (US 2009/0183182 Al,
pub. July 16, 2009), Khoo, and Wilk.
Claims 3—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kyocera, Ambrose, Khoo, Wilk, and Kim (US
2011/0039603 Al, pub. Feb. 17, 2011).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kyocera, Ambrose, Khoo, Wilk, Kim, and Parthasarathy.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.1
Claims 1—10
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. §41.41 (b)(2).
3
Appeal 2017-006900
Application 13/364,492
I
Appellants contend the cited references do not collectively teach:
in response to the second input . . . and the determination that the
device is in a second display mode: presenting the call log on the first
display; and presenting a second user interface, associated with the
phone application, on the second display, wherein the second user
interface is detailed information about one or more calls associated
with the first person selected in the call log,
as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 8—15; Reply Br. 3—11. In particular,
Appellants assert in Kyocera, “this ‘second input’ does not describe opening
a child window of the phone application in a second display.” App. Br. 13.
Appellants contend “Ambrose does not show a separate user interface as
provided in the claim but a different portion in the same call log,” and
“Khoo teaches displaying two windows from two applications on two
displays.” App. Br. 14.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants’
arguments, the Examiner finds Kyocera teaches “in response to the second
input. . . and the determination that the device is in a second display mode:
presenting the . . . on the first display; and presenting a second user
interface, associated with the phone application, on the second display,
wherein the second user interface is . . .” under the optimized mode:
Kyocera teaches a du[a]l screen phone displaying two different
user interfaces on two separate displays (see page 3 of 206)....
Kyocera teaches displaying a phone application as a call log
which could be one of the user interfaces displayed in a first
display; an entry in the call log could be selected by a user input
to view the selected call entry details to make a call (see page 57
of 206, showing a “Call log tab” on the left figure which could
be tapped to open a call log and then tap an entry in the call log
4
Appeal 2017-006900
Application 13/364,492
to view and make a call; see pages 89-90 of 206, showing a “Call
Log” on page 89 of 206 and “Call Log Options” on page 90 of
206).
Furthermore, Kyocera teaches many different screen modes . . .
Optimized mode - Run two functions of a single application,
one on each screenM For example, you can compose email on
one screen and display the keyboard on the other; or view
Gallery images on one display while browsing thumbnails on
the other. This mode works with any of the seven core
functions described in the next section in page 52 of 206,
“Switching Screen Modes”; the seven core functions
includes a phone application).
Ans. 4—5.
Appellants fail to persuasively respond to such finding and therefore,
fail to show error. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”). Instead, Appellants contend “this
description does not teach the specific configuration of a call log provided in
a first window and a call details window provided in a second window.”
Reply Br. 6.2
That assertion is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on the
combination of the references to teach or suggest the disputed claim
limitations, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking
Kyocera individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
2 Appellants also assert in Kyocera, “the user must select an icon .... This
teaching is just the opposite from receiving a gesture in an off-display
gesture area.” Reply Br. 6. That assertion is unpersuasive because the
Examiner cites Wilk—not Kyocera—for teaching “is a gesture received in
an off-display gesture area.” See Final Act. 8—9.
5
Appeal 2017-006900
Application 13/364,492
Cir. 1986). The Examiner finds—and Appellants acknowledge—Kyocera
teaches the “call log” may be viewed. See Final Act. 5; App. Br. 13.
Further, Appellants acknowledge Ambrose teaches a call log window. See
App. Br. 13. Therefore, Kyocera and Ambrose collectively teach
“presenting the call log on the first display.”
Further, the Examiner correctly finds Ambrose teaches “detailed
information about one or more calls associated with the first person selected
in the call log.” See Ans. 6—7; Ambrose Fig. 3 (302). Therefore, the
Examiner correctly finds Kyocera and Ambrose collectively teach
“presenting the call log on the first display; and presenting a second user
interface, associated with the phone application, on the second display,
wherein the second user interface is detailed information about one or more
calls associated with the first person selected in the call log.”3
In the Reply Brief and for the first time, Appellants belatedly raise
new arguments about Wilk. See Reply Br. 9—10. Appellants have waived
such arguments because they are untimely, and Appellants have not
demonstrated any “good cause” for the belated presentation. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
II
Appellants contend there is no motivation to combine the references.
See App. Br. 15—17; Reply Br. 11—12.
3 Cumulatively, the Examiner finds Khoo teaches “presenting the ... on the
first display; and presenting a second user interface, associated with the
phone application, on the second display, wherein the second user interface
is . . .” and caller details. See Ans. 7—8.
6
Appeal 2017-006900
Application 13/364,492
Appellants have not persuaded us of error.4 The U.S. Supreme Court
has held “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Contrary
to Appellants’ argument, “[i]f the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418—19. Further, “[i]n
determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither
the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.”
Id. at 419.
The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have combined the
teachings of Kyocera, Ambrose, Khoo, and Wilk. See Final Act. 6—9; Ans.
11. Appellants do not persuasively show why such reasoning is incorrect.
In particular, Appellants’ argument that “[h]ow would the screen of
Ambrose be displayed as a second application window on the Kyocera
phone” and “[h]ow could the mouse input in Wilk be used with the Kyocera
phone” (App. Br. 16) are not directed toward the proposed combination. As
discussed above, Kyocera already teaches a second display. Further, the
Examiner cites Wilk’s “special function buttons directing control to that
screen,” not mouse input, for the proposed combination. See Ans. 9; Wilk
4 As discussed below, the U.S. Supreme Court has set a clear standard on
this matter, and Appellants’ citation of a non-precedential PTAB opinion
(App. Br. 16) is unpersuasive.
7
Appeal 2017-006900
Application 13/364,492
9:37-40. In addition, Appellants’ assertion that “[t]he first motivation,
‘using a gesture on an off-display gesture area as an alternative input
mechanism would have been obtained as taught by Wilk, ’ does not speak to
why one skilled in the art would include two application windows as taught
by Khoo nor to why a call detail window, as taught by Ambrose, would be
incorporated” (App. Br. 16) is unpersuasive, because it ignores the
Examiner’s explicit rationale for combining the teachings of Kyocera,
Ambrose, and Khoo. See Final Act. 6—8.
The Examiner’s findings and conclusion are reasonable because the
skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Appellants do not
present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418-19).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that combining the
teachings of Kyocera, Ambrose, Khoo, and Wilk would have predictably
used prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2—10, as Appellants do not advance separate substantive arguments
about those claims.
8
Appeal 2017-006900
Application 13/364,492
Claims 11—20
Appellants argue “the Office Action makes no citation to any part of
the reference that mentions a multi-display management module” and
“Parthasarathy does not describe sending a display binding based on the
orientation of the phone, as in claim 11.” App. Br. 17—18; see also App. Br.
17-19; Reply Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner finds Kyocera teaches the claimed “multi­
display management module.” See Ans. 13—14; Kyocera 3, 51—52, 141;
picture 3. Appellants do not dispute that finding.
Appellants’ assertion about Parthasarathy is not commensurate with
the scope of the claim, as Appellants have not shown claim 11 requires
“sending a display binding based on the orientation of the phone.” In any
event, the Examiner cites Kyocera—not Parthasarathy—for teaching “based
on a phone orientation, receive a display binding from the multi-display
management module.” See Final Act. 12. Appellants fail to persuasively
dispute such finding.
Further, Appellants’ assertion that “the citation to Parthasarthy
describes . . . , but, as is evident from the Examiner’s argument, is
completely failing to state that a display mode is provided in the
‘manifest[]’” (Reply Br. 12) is unpersuasive, because it is not commensurate
with the scope of the claim. In addition, Appellants’ argument is not
directed to the Examiner’s specific mapping: the Examiner finds Kyocera
and Parthasarthy collectively teach or suggest “wherein the manifest
provides a preferred display mode,” because Parthasarathy “show[s] the
application manifest and associated component manifest for constructing the
9
Appeal 2017-006900
Application 13/364,492
displayed image as part of binding process.” Ans. 14—15. Appellants fail to
persuasively respond to such finding and therefore, fail to show error. See
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
In the Reply Brief and for the first time, Appellants belatedly raise
new arguments about Kyocera and that “there is still no reference that
provides a description of a display binding.” Reply Br. 12. Appellants have
waived such arguments because they are untimely, and Appellants have not
demonstrated any “good cause” for the belated presentation. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
Appellants’ remaining arguments are unpersuasive for reasons similar
to those discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11, and independent
claim 16 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 12—15 and 17—20, as Appellants do not advance separate substantive
arguments about those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
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
10