Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 14, 20212021003200 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 16/584,783 09/26/2019 Graham R. CLARKE P41579US2/77770000504102 3098 150004 7590 10/14/2021 DENTONS US LLP - Apple 4655 Executive Dr Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2145 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/14/2021 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): dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com patent.docket@dentons.com patents.us@dentons.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GRAHAM R. CLARKE, SIMON BOVET, ERIC M.G. CIRCLAEYS, LYNNE DEVINE, ALAN C. DYE, ANDREAS KARLSSON, MATTHIEU LUCAS, BEHKISH J. MANZARI, NICOLE R. RYAN, WILLIAM A. SORRENTINO, ANDRE SOUZA DOS SANTOS, GREGG SUZUKI, and SERGEY TATARCHUK Appeal 2021-003200 Application 16/584,783 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–17, which are all of the claims pending in the application. A hearing was held on September 23, 2021. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2021-003200 Application 16/584,783 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to “navigating a collection of media items.” Spec. Abstract. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 1. An electronic device, comprising: a display device; one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: displaying, via the display device, a plurality of media items in a first layout that includes a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, including displaying: a first media item of the plurality of media items at a first aspect ratio and a first size, a second media item of the plurality of media items at the first aspect ratio, and a third media item of the plurality of media items; while displaying, via the display device, the plurality of media items in the first layout that includes the plurality of rows and the plurality of columns, detecting a user input that includes a gesture, wherein the user input corresponds to a request to change a size of the first media item; and in response to detecting the user input: gradually changing, as the gesture progresses, the size of the first media item from the first size to a second size that is different from the Appeal 2021-003200 Application 16/584,783 3 first size while concurrently gradually changing, as the gesture progresses, an aspect ratio of the first media item from the first aspect ratio to a second aspect ratio that is different from the first aspect ratio; and changing an aspect ratio of the second media item from the first aspect ratio to a third aspect ratio that is different from the first aspect ratio. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art: Name Number Date Fleizach US 2014/0165000 A1 June 12, 2014 Johansson US 2015/0177979 A1 June 25, 2015 Perrodin US 2013/0239049 A1 Sept. 12, 2013 Schendel US 8,132,116 B1 Mar. 6, 2012 REJECTIONS The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims References Final Act. 1–9, 12–14, 16, 17 Johansson, Fleizach 3 10, 11 Johansson, Fleizach, Perrodin 12 15 Johansson, Fleizach, Schendel, Perrodin 14 ANALYSIS Claims 1–6, 8–12, 14, 16, and 17 Claim 1 recites “in response to detecting the user input:” (1) “gradually changing, as the gesture progresses, the size of the first media item . . . while concurrently gradually changing, as the gesture progresses, an aspect ratio of the first media item” and (2) “changing an aspect ratio of the second media item.” The other independent claims (16 and 17) recite commensurate limitations. Appeal 2021-003200 Application 16/584,783 4 The Examiner relies on Johansson for teaching or suggesting these limitations. Final Act. 4 (citing Johansson Figs. 3, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 6, 6A, 8, 9, ¶¶ 23–27). Johansson discloses a mobile phone displaying a grid of media items where a gesture on the touch screen (e.g., a pinch or spread) switches between different layouts. Johansson ¶¶ 45, 49, 17. Sample grids are shown in Figures 4A, 5A, and 6A, which are reproduced below: Figures 4A, 5A, and 6A illustrate various layouts for displayed media items 11–16 (“e.g., a media file, such as music, video or a picture”). Johansson ¶¶ 45, 49. A pinch gesture or spread gesture can be used to switch between different layouts (e.g., from Figure 4A to 5A, or vice versa), and different layouts can change the size and placement of each media item (e.g., media item 11 being smaller in Figure 4A than Figure 5A). Id. ¶¶ 50, 53. Additional information about a media item also can be displayed in media field 30, and the size and appearance of media field 30 can be changed (or even entirely hidden) depending on the layout. Id. ¶¶ 12, 13, 18, 56. For example, media field 30 is hidden entirely in Figure 4A but Appeal 2021-003200 Application 16/584,783 5 shown with additional details and a play button in Figure 6A. Figures 4A, 5A, and 6A also depict “a grid in dotted lines associated with the physical touch resolution of the touch sensitive display for disclosing the relationship between sizes of media items and their media fields and the touch grid.” Id. ¶ 34. The Examiner finds: As a touch pinching/spreading gesture progress[es] to change one layout (i.e. Fig. 4A) to another layout (i.e. Fig. 9), the size of first media item 11 is gradually changed from the single grid G square aspect ratio (as first aspect ratio shown in Fig. 4A) to a rectangular aspect ratio in (greater than 2 by greater than 3) grid G squares (as second aspect ratio shown in Fig. 9 that is different with the first aspect ratio); and second media item 12 is gradually changed from the single grid G square aspect ratio (as first aspect ratio shown in Fig. 4A) to another rectangular aspect ratio in (greater than 1 by 2) grid G squares (as third aspect ratio shown in Fig. 9 that is different with the first aspect ratio)) (Figs. 3, 4A, 9, [0017, 0023-0027]). Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 4 (discussing similar examples with other figures). Appellant, however, views Johansson differently. “Appellant agrees that the square grid shown in FIGS. 4A-6A of Johansson can be used to infer a change in size of media items in different layouts.” Reply Br. 5. “However, claim 1 requires a change in size and also separately requires a change in aspect ratio.” Id. “Media item 11 appears to maintain the same aspect ratio from Fig. 4A to Fig. 9.” Id. at 6 (emphasis added). “In fact, it appears that the aspect ratios of these media items remain the same through each layout, and the only changes from one layout to another are (a) the size [of] each media item; and (b) whether the media field 30 is hidden from view (e.g., Fig. 4), whether it is overlaid on a media item (e.g., Fig. 5), or Appeal 2021-003200 Application 16/584,783 6 whether it is presented adjacent to a media item (e.g., Fig. 6 or Fig. 9).” Appeal Br. 21–22; see also Johansson ¶¶ 19, 24, 56. Additionally, Appellant relies on MPEP § 2125 in arguing that “proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale.” Appeal Br. 20 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Johansson expressly states that Figures 4A, 5A, and 6A provide “a grid in dotted lines . . . for disclosing the relationship between sizes of media items and their media fields.” Johansson ¶ 34. Thus, the purpose of Johansson’s grid of dotted lines (or “touch squares”) is to provide a scale of relative measurement, which MPEP § 2125 explains is a permissible use for drawings. Ans. 3–4. Moreover, the Specification also discloses the changes to media items and their respective media fields, as discussed below. In Figure 4A, each media item 11–16 is “the smallest (one touch square)” and any media fields are hidden. Johansson ¶ 24. Thus, the aspect ratio of media item 11 is 1:1 because the height equals the width. Yet in subsequent figures, Johansson teaches or suggests this aspect ratio changing regardless of whether we adopt the Examiner’s interpretation of the “media item.” The Examiner interprets the claimed “media item” as including both the area for a picture (e.g., an album cover) and the media field 30 (e.g., the album title and artist name). Ans. 5; Appeal Br. 21. We note that Johansson also uses the term “media item” and expressly discloses—and in fact claims—that “each media item comprises one or more media fields for displaying additional content of the media item” (i.e., that the media field is part of the media item). Johansson claim 3 (emphasis added), ¶ 12. To the Appeal 2021-003200 Application 16/584,783 7 extent the Examiner’s interpretation of “media item” is reasonable, Figure 6A discloses a change in aspect ratios. Figure 6A depicts that the area for the picture alone has a width of two touch squares and a height of two touch squares, and the media field 30 also has a width of “two touch squares” and a height greater than zero but less than one. Thus, the media item as a whole has a width of two touch squares but a height greater than two touch squares. This means that the aspect ratio has changed because the height no longer equals the width. Final Act. 4 (“from one grid G square aspect ratio (i.e. Fig. 4A) to a rectangular aspect ratio . . . (2 by greater than 2) . . . (i.e. Fig. 6A)”). The same is true for media item 12. See also Johansson Figs. 6, 7, 9 (showing similar examples with different sizes and placement of media items and their media fields). However, even if the claimed “media item” included only the area for a picture in Johansson and excluded the media field 30, then Figure 5A still would render obvious changing the aspect ratio. In Figure 5A, the combined height of the area for the picture and media field 30 equals the width (i.e., has an aspect ratio of 1:1). See also Reply Br. 6. However, part of that height is from media field 30, which means the height of the remainder (i.e., the area for a picture alone) is less than the width, which means the aspect ratio of that portion has changed away from 1:1. Appellant argues that in Figure 5A, “the media field 30 is being overlaid on the media item 11.” Reply Br. 6. Johansson does disclose that in some embodiments, “at least one media field at least partly overlays at least one media item.” Johansson ¶ 19, claim 15; see also id. ¶ 56. However, Appellant has not directed us to anything in Johansson stating that Figure 5A in particular depicts such an overlay. For example, Johansson Appeal 2021-003200 Application 16/584,783 8 elsewhere discloses that Figures 2 to 11 depict “objects 11-16 . . . , in this case media items in the form of pictures of e.g. music albums” and “if at least one media item resembles any artwork, the visible media field 30 may not overlay this media item.” Johansson ¶¶ 49 (emphasis added), 56. Regardless, even if media field 30 were overlaid in Figure 5A, Appellant fails to provide any discussion why such an overlay would not teach or suggest obscuring part of the image and hence changing the aspect ratio. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error regardless of whether we adopt the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed “media item.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–6, 8–12, 14, 16, and 17, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 17, 22; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 7 Claim 7 recites “changing an aspect ratio of the second media item from the first aspect ratio to a third aspect ratio that is different from the first aspect ratio and the second aspect ratio.” The Examiner relies on Figure 9 depicting “the third rectangular aspect ratio (i.e. greater than 1 by 2 grid G squares as shown in Fig. 9) which is different [from] . . . the second rectangular aspect ratio[] (i.e. media item 11 rectangular (greater than 2 by greater than 3 grid G squares) shown in Fig. 9).” Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 8. Appellant argues that, within each figure, each media item is displayed “having the same aspect ratio.” Appeal Br. 23. Thus, “Fig. 9 appears to display media item 11 and media item 12 having the same aspect ratio.” Reply Br. 9. Appeal 2021-003200 Application 16/584,783 9 We agree with Appellant. Using Figure 9 as an example, media item 11 is depicted as having twice the height and twice the width as media item 12. Thus, although media items 11 and 12 are different sizes, their aspect ratios are identical. This is true regardless of whether each media item includes only the area for the picture or also includes media field 30. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Claim 13 Claim 13 recites “displaying a combination of the second media item and the third media item at the first location relative to the first media item during the transition from displaying the first media item in the first layout to displaying the first media item in the second layout.” The Examiner determines “the ‘combination’ claim language is still too broad” and finds Johansson discloses this limitation by showing media items 12 and 13 either “side by side” in Figure 4A or “top to bottom” in Figure 9. Ans. 7. However, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not explained sufficiently how any such combination is shown “during the transition.” Reply Br. 10. For example, the Specification discusses an example of showing “[c]rossfading the content items [to] provide[] the user with feedback about where content items have moved to when switching from the first layout to the second layout.” Spec. ¶ 424. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13. Appeal 2021-003200 Application 16/584,783 10 Claim 15 Claim 15 recites “providing an option to change aspect ratios of at least some of the plurality of media items while continuing to display the plurality of media items in the first layout.” Appellant argues that “the Office Action’s analysis provides no explanation as to how the ‘panel 338’ in FIGS. 3 and 4 of Schendel provides ‘an option to change aspect ratios of at least some of the plurality of media items while continuing to display the plurality of media items in the first layout.’” Appeal Br. 26. Appellant further argues that Perrodin’s options “relate to text entries for a journal page, and not for changing the ‘media item 2009.’” Reply Br. 12. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred. What the Examiner refers to as “media item 2009” in Perrodin is actually “text field 2925” that happens to have the text for the year “2009” typed in. See Perrodin ¶ 217, Fig. 29. According to Perrodin, “the text field 2925 is similar to a heading.” Id. ¶ 217. Perrodin discloses buttons to make this text field be full width. Id. ¶¶ 218–19, Fig. 30. However, it is not clear that Perrodin discloses any such similar buttons for changing the aspect ratios of media items such as pictures or videos. Instead, Perrodin discloses that “the thumbnails in the thumbnail display area 105 are all squares, irrespective of the aspect ratio of the full-size images” and “[i]mages in the image display area 110 are displayed in the aspect ratio of the full-size images.” Perrodin ¶¶ 81, 83; see also id. ¶¶ 397, 400. And although Schendel teaches buttons for media items, it is not clear that any of those buttons impact any aspect ratio. See Ans. 8 (citing Schendel 4:46–67, Figs. 3–4). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15. Appeal 2021-003200 Application 16/584,783 11 OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–9, 12– 14, 16, 17 103 Johansson, Fleizach 1–6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17 7, 13 10, 11 103 Johansson, Fleizach, Perrodin 10, 11 15 103 Johansson, Fleizach, Schendel, Perrodin 15 Overall Outcome 1–6, 8–12, 14, 16, 17 7, 13, 15 TIME TO RESPOND No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.36(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation