Ex Parte Williamson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2017

11961773 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
11/961,773 12/20/2007 Richard Williamson 106842108700(P4969US 1) 6871
119082 7590 03/28/2017
Apple c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP SF
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2485
EXAMINER
THATCHER, PAUL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2017 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):
EOfficeSF @mofo.com
PatentDocket @ mofo. com
pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD WILLIAMSON, CHARLES J. PISULA,
GREG CHRISTIE, STEPHEN O. LEMAY, IMRAN CHAUDHRI,
and TIMOTHY P. OMERNICK
Appeal 2014-0050761
Application 11/961,7732
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 21, 28—31, and 33—46.
Claims 1, 4—6, 8—9, 12, 14, 16—20, 22—27, and 32 are cancelled. (App. Br.
6.) We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 An oral hearing was held March 16, 2017.
2 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 4.)
Appeal 2014-005076
Application 11/961,773
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to
enlargement and display of inline multimedia content in response to
detecting a gesture on a structured electronic document. (Abstract.)
Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
2. A method, comprising:
at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display:
displaying at least a portion of a structured electronic
document on the touch screen display in a portrait orientation of
the touch screen display, wherein the structured electronic
document comprises content;
detecting a first gesture on an item of inline multimedia
content in the displayed portion of the structured electronic
document;
in response to detecting the first gesture on the item of
inline multimedia content:
enlarging the item of inline multimedia content on
the touch screen display,
visually rotating the item of inline multimedia
content by 90° to a landscape orientation of the touch
screen display; and
ceasing to display all other content in the
structured electronic document besides the enlarged and
rotated item of inline multimedia content;
detecting a second gesture on a play icon; and
in response to detecting the second gesture, playing the
enlarged and rotated item of inline multimedia content.
2
Appeal 2014-005076
Application 11/961,773
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 15, 21, 28—31, 33, 35, 36,
38-40, 42, 43, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cappendijk (US 2003/0025676 Al, pub. Feb. 6, 2003), Amzallag et al.
(US 7,788,583 Bl, issued Aug. 31, 2010), and Koyama (US 2005/0020317
Al, pub. Jan. 27, 2005). (Final Act. 4—9.)
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 34, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cappendijk, Amzallag, Koyama, and Funakami
et al. (US 2007/0250768 Al, pub. Oct. 25, 2007). (Final Act. 9-10.)
The Examiner rejected claims 13, 37, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cappendijk, Amzallag, Koyama, and Malak,
“Adding Video To Your Web Pages,” Computing in Science & Engineering
(May/June 2000). (Final Act. 10-11.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief present the following issues:3
First Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Cappendijk, Amzallag, and Koyama teaches or suggests the claim 2
limitation “in response to detecting the first gesture on the item of inline
multimedia content. . . visually rotating the item of inline multimedia
content by 90° to a landscape orientation of the touch screen display,” and
the similar limitations recited in independent claims 28, 30, and 31. (App.
Br. 13-16.)
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 29, 2013); the Reply Brief
(filed Jan. 21, 2014); the Final Office Action (mailed Nov. 29, 2012); and
the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Nov. 21, 2013) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2014-005076
Application 11/961,773
Second Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Cappendijk, Amzallag, Koyama, and Malak teaches or suggests the
additional limitations of dependent claims 13, 37, and 44. (App. Br. 17—18.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4—11)
and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 9—11).
We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner, and
emphasize the following.
First Issue
In finding Cappendijk, Amzallag, and Koyama teach or suggest the
limitation of the independent claims at issue, the Examiner relies on the
disclosures in Cappendijk and Amzallag of the display of content in portrait
and landscape formats, and in particular on the disclosure in Amzallag of a
web page containing graphical elements, including a video still, which when
“clicked” via a mouse expands to full screen mode. (Final Act. 4—5; Ans.
10; Cappendijk Figs. 1, 2, || 4, 16, 20; Amzallag Figs. 1—4, col. 2,11. 13—
33.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Koyama of rotating a
digital video image ninety degrees upon determination that the image is to
be displayed in landscape format. (Final Act. 6; Koyama 7, 21.)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because Koyama rotates the
image in memory before displaying it, in contrast to the claim requirement
4
Appeal 2014-005076
Application 11/961,773
of “visually rotating” the image. (App. Br. 14—15.) Appellants also argue
the image in Koyama is not rotated in response to a gesture, as also required
by the claims. (Id.)
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on
the combination of the references as teaching or suggesting this limitation.
In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having
ordinary skill in the art.”). We agree with the Examiner’s finding:
[T]he effect of viewing a webpage in portrait format (see
Cappendijk Figure 3) including a thumbnail and video link
enlarging said thumbnail to full screen mode (see Amazallag
[sic] Figure 1, Figures 1 and 2; Column 2, Fines 21-34) and
showing or playing the video in a rotated landscape format (see
Koyama paragraph 7) is that some form or sort of visual
rotation has necessarily taken place ....
[I]t is not required that Koyama teach visual rotation happening
as a result of receiving a gesture because receiving a gesture to
enlarge and prepare to play a video is taught b[y] the other
references (see Amazallag [sic] Figure 1, Figures 1 and 2;
Column 2, Fines 21-34).
(Ans. 10-11.)
Under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claims, the
requirement of visually rotating does not require a rotation animation effect,
as Appellants appear to argue. (See Final Act. 2—3.) “Visually rotating”
may exclude merely rotating data in memory without ever displaying the
data, but we are not persuaded that visually rotating excludes the scenario
here of displaying a thumbnail of a video or image on the monitor followed
by displaying the video in full-screen rotated by 90 degrees. (See also Spec.
5
Appeal 2014-005076
Application 11/961,773
1136 (“In some embodiments, enlarging the item of inline multimedia
content comprises rotating the item of inline multimedia content by 90°.”).)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 2, 28, 30, and 31.
Second Issue
Dependent claim 13 requires “including overriding an instruction in
the structured electronic document to automatically start playing the item of
inline multimedia content until the second gesture is received,” with a
similar limitation recited in dependent claims 37 and 44. (App. Br. 20, 24,
25.) The Examiner’s rejection of these claims relies on the disclosure in
Malak of the ability to ignore a QuickTime “autoplay” parameter when a
plug-in is not able to start automatically. (Final Act. 10-11; Malak p. 75.)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because “ignoring the value of the
auto argument when a plug-in is not able to start automatically does not
teach or suggest overriding an instruction ... to automatically start
playing when the device is able to automatically start playing.” (App. Br.
17—18.) However, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Malak,
in combination with the other cited references, teach or suggests this
limitation: “A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would understand one reason a plug-in might not be able to auto-start is that
it would take time to download or buffer a video before playing.” (Final
Act. 4.) The distinction Appellants attempt to make between “ignoring
when not able” and “overriding when able” is not recited in the claims as
presently written. (App. Br. 18.)
6
Appeal 2014-005076
Application 11/961,773
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
independent claims 2, 28, 30, and 31 over Cappendijk, Amzallag, and
Koyama, and of dependent claims 13,37, and 44 over Cappendijk,
Amzallag, Koyama, and Malak.
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 3, 10, 11, 15,21,
29, 33, 35, 36, 38—40, 42, 43, 45, and 46 over Cappendijk, Amzallag, and
Koyama, and of claims 7, 34, and 41 over Cappendijk, Amzallag, Koyama,
and Funakami, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity.
(App. Br. 16.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15,
21, 28—31, and 33—46.
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
7