Ex Parte Adam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

11713166 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 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.
11/713,166 03/01/2007 Thorsten Adam P5121US1/ APPL:0389 1726
73576 7590
APPLE INC. - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
STITT, ERIK V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THORSTEN ADAM and CLEMENS HOMBURG
Appeal 2016-005147
Application 11/713,166
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 9, 11, and 16 through 29. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-005147
Application 11/713,166
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a graphical user interface for
arranging music. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
invention and reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for arranging music on a display of a data
processing system comprising:
a graphical user interface on a display device configured
to:
at a first time, display different tracks on a first display
section of the graphical user interface, and display a first channel
strip on a second display section of the graphical user interface
without displaying a second channel strip on the second display
section of the graphical user interface; and
at a second time, in response to an operation in the first
channel strip within the graphical user interface that causes a
channel to be created and associated with the second channel
strip, display the second channel strip on the second display
section, wherein the second channel strip that is displayed has
characteristics that depend on the operation in the first channel
strip.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 9 and 25 through 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Green (US 2013/0123960
Al; published May 16, 2013) and Plastina (US 2007/0244856 Al; published
Oct. 18, 2007). Final Action 7—13.1
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed August 24,
2015, Reply Brief filed April 12, 2016, Final Action mailed January 14,
2015, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on February 12, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-005147
Application 11/713,166
The Examiner has rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Green, Plastina, and Aiso (US 2006/0282562 Al;
published Dec. 14, 2006). Final Action 13.
The Examiner has rejected claims 16, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Aiso and Plastina. See Final Action 13—15.
The Examiner has rejected claims 17, 19, 20 and 22 through 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aiso, Plastina, and Green. Final
Action 15—16.
ISSUES
Claims 1 through 9
Appellants argue, on pages 8 through 13 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 2 through 4 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 5 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by
these arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Green and Plastina teaches in response to operation of a first channel strip,
creating a channel, associating a second channel strip with the channel, and
displaying the second panel strip, as set forth in each of the independent
claims 1 and 5?
Claims 25 through 29
Appellants argue, on pages 13 through 16 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 6 and 7 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 25 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by these
arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Green and Plastina teaches in response to operation of a first channel strip,
3
Appeal 2016-005147
Application 11/713,166
creating a modified instrument audio object, displaying a second channel
strip which operates on the modified instrument audio object, as set forth in
independent claim 25?
Claims 16, 18, and 21
Appellants argue, on pages 20 through 25 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 4 through 6 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 16 and 21 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by
these arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Aiso and Plastina teaches in response to addressing a bus in a first channel
strip, creating a channel, associating a second channel strip with the channel,
and displaying the second panel strip, as set forth in each of the independent
claims 16 and 21?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We agree with Appellants’
conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1,5, 16,
21, and 25.
Claims 1 through 9
The Examiner in response to Appellants’ arguments directed to the
first issue states that Green teaches multiple channel strips in a user interface
and that a channel strip is merely a user interface. Answer 3^4 (citing
Figure 5). Further, the Examiner finds Plastina teaches selecting an item on
part of a display interface creates a display of another item in a portion of the
4
Appeal 2016-005147
Application 11/713,166
display interface, thus teaching an interface object can cause dynamic
creation of another interface. Answer 3^4. We concur with the Examiner
that Green teaches multiple channels strips and channels, however, we do
not find that Green teaches creating another channel and associated channel
strip as claimed. Further, Plastina teaches a system which provides search
results, the objects depicted in the two fields of Fig. 13 are search term and
results. See Abstract. The Examiner has not explained, nor is it apparent to
us, how modifying Green’s teachings with Plastina’s query/search results
display results in generating a channel and a channel strip associated with
that channel as set forth in claims 1 and 5. According, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 5 or the claims which
depend upon them.
Claims 25 through 29
The Examiner has not responded to Appellants’ arguments directed to
these claims. The Examiner’s rationale directed to these claims in the Final
Office Action, is similar to that discussed above with respect to claim 1. See
Final Act 11. Independent claim 25 recites a first channel strip operates on a
first audio object to create a modified instrument audio object, and in
response displaying a second channel strip which operates on the audio
object. The Examiner has not explained, nor is it apparent to us, how
combining Green’s and Plastina’s teachings results in the claimed feature of
using a first channel strip to create a modified instrument audio object, and
in response displaying a second channel strip operating on the modified
5
Appeal 2016-005147
Application 11/713,166
instrument audio object. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 25 or the claims which depend upon them.
Claims 16, 18, and 21
The Examiner in response to Appellants’ arguments directed to the
third issue states that Aiso discloses that a “bus input/output can be used for
channel transfer so that newly created channels in memory are created based
on a channel transfer to another bus.” Answer 5 (citing para. 37). Further,
the Examiner combines this teaching of Aiso with Platina’s teaching of
dynamically adding objects to a user interface. Answer 6.
We disagree with the Examiner. Independent claims 16 and 21 each
recite limitations directed to addressing a bus for the first time, creating a
second channel associated with the addressed bus, associating the channel
with a second channel strip, and displaying the second channel strip. We do
not find that the teachings of Aiso relied upon by the Examiner discuss
addressing a bus for the first time, further, the Examiner has not shown how
the references teach creating a second channel associated with the address
bus, associating the channel with a second panel strip, and displaying the
second panel strip. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 16 and 21.
Claims If 17, 19, 20 and22 through24
The Examiner’s rejection of these dependent claims relies upon the
teachings of Green, Plastina, and Aiso for the limitations of independent
claims 5, 16, and 21. As discussed above we do not find these references
6
Appeal 2016-005147
Application 11/713,166
teach the limitations of independent claims 5,16, and 21, accordingly we
similarly do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these dependent claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 9, 11, and 16
through 29 is reversed.
REVERSED
7