Ex Parte Anzures

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2017

12566656 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 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.
12/566,656 09/24/2009 Freddy Allen Anzures 106842087500 (P7565US1) 2790
119082 7590 05/12/2017
Apple c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP SF
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2485
EXAMINER
ULRICH, NICHOLAS S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2017 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 FREDDY ALLEN ANZURES
Appeal 2014-003136
Application 12/566,656
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, 19-24, 26—30, 32, and 33, which are all the
claims in this application.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on February 15, 2017.
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. (App. Br. 4).
3 Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10-13, 16—18, 25, and 31 have been canceled.
Appeal 2014-003136
Application 12/566,656
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “multifunction devices with displays
and touch-sensitive surfaces operable to edit audio or video attachments to
electronic messages, such as emails and text messages” (Spec. 12).
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
at a multifunction device with a display and a touch-
sensitive surface:
while in an audio or video playback mode:
presenting an audio or video file for playback; and
detecting a user selection of the audio or video file to be
sent in an electronic message, wherein the audio or video
file has an initial duration;
in direct response to detecting the user selection of the
audio or video file to be sent in the electronic message,
immediately displaying:
a file size warning and an icon for entering a file
editing mode when the audio or video file size exceeds a
predefined maximum value;
detecting activation of the icon for entering the file
editing mode by the user;
in direct response to detecting activation of the icon for
entering the file editing mode, immediately displaying:
a time bar with a length that represents the audio or
video file with the initial duration,
a user-adjustable begin-edit icon, and
a user-adjustable end-edit icon, wherein:
a distance between the user-adjustable
begin-edit icon and the user-adjustable end-edit
icon is less than the length of the time bar, and
the distance between the user-adjustable
begin-edit icon and the user-adjustable end-edit
2
Appeal 2014-003136
Application 12/566,656
icon is constrained to be equal to or less than a
distance that corresponds to a predefined
maximum allowable size for the audio or video
file, wherein the time bar, the user-adjustable
begin-edit icon, and the user-adjustable end-edit
icon are displayed in an audio or video file editing
interface;
detecting a first input by the user on the touch-sensitive
surface;
in direct response to detecting the first input by the user
on the touch-sensitive surface, adjusting at least one of the
begin-edit icon and the end-edit icon in the audio or video file
editing interface;
while displaying the audio or video file editing interface,
detecting a second input by the user; and
in direct response to detecting the second input by the
user, immediately displaying in an electronic messaging
application an icon representing an edited audio or video file
with a second duration that is shorter than the initial duration,
the second duration in accordance with the adjustments to the
begin-edit icon and the end-edit icon in the audio or video file
editing interface.
Claims 1, 5, 14, 15, 19—22, 26—28, 32, and 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable Yaji (US 2005/0018050 Al),
Patten (US 7,739,599 B2), HTC {HTC Touch Pro - User Manual, HTC
Corp., 2008), Rudd (US 2003/0055844 Al), Lanza (US 2007/0245243 Al),
and Lowe (US 7,890,585 B2) (see Final Act. 2—11).
Claims 8, 9, 23, 24, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable Yaji, Patten, HTC, Rudd, Lanza, Lowe, and
Wells (US 2009/0143141 Al) (see Final Act. 11-13).
3
Appeal 2014-003136
Application 12/566,656
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner errs. We disagree with Appellant’s 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. 2—13)
and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—10).
We concur with the Examiner and emphasize the following.
Claim 1
First Argument
Appellant contends the Examiner’s combination of Yaji and Lanza
fails to teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1 reciting “while displaying
the audio or video file editing interface, detecting a second input by the user;
and in direct response to detecting the second input by the user, immediately
displaying in an electronic messaging application an icon representing an
edited audio or video file” (App. Br. 18—21). Appellant specifically asserts
the disclosure of e-mailing portions of a video in Lanza involves providing
links to portions of a video via email and does not teach or suggest editing
that video (App. Br. 20).
In response, the Examiner states that the proposed rejection relies
“upon at least Yaji, Lanza, and Lowe” whereas Appellant’s arguments fail to
mention Lowe (Ans. 2). The Examiner finds Yaji teaches the user saves a
movie as an attachment after editing the movie and opens the preparation
screen to create a new e-mail (Ans. 3 (citing Yaji Fig. 17,10114)). Based
on this teaching, the Examiner finds “Yaji teaches detecting a second input
4
Appeal 2014-003136
Application 12/566,656
by the user; (EMAIL button operated), and in direct response to detecting
the second input by the user, immediately displaying an electronic
messaging application (User’s E-mail preparation screen is shown in
response to the selection of the EM ATI, button)” (id.). With respect to
Lanza, the Examiner properly finds the video editing interface with the
“EMAIL” button allows the user to identify segments in a media
presentation by their start time, and teaches or suggests the recited video
editing limitation (Ans. 3^4 (citing Lanza H 33, 50)). The Examiner further
finds Lowe provides an electronic messaging application that displays an
icon to represent an attachment (Ans. 4 (citing Lowe Fig. 5, element 532)).
We therefore are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred.
Second Argument
Appellant contends the Examiner’s combination of Yaji and Lanza
fails to teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1 reciting “in direct response
to detecting the user selection of the audio or video file to be sent in the
electronic message, immediately displaying: a file size warning and an icon
for entering a file editing mode when the audio or video file size exceeds a
predefined maximum value” (App. Br. 21—24). According to Appellant, the
cited portion of Rudd in paragraphs 41—43 and Figures 5 and 6 do not teach
or suggest that the user is presented with “an icon for entering a file editing
mode” (App. Br. 24).
The Examiner finds the disclosure of Rudd is concerned with the file
size as determined by a default transmission setting and alerting the user so
that the user can reduce the file size (Ans. 5). The Examiner explains Rudd
was added to the combination of Yaji and Patten; and the combination is
cited for teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation to provide “a file size
5
Appeal 2014-003136
Application 12/566,656
warning (alert) and an icon for entering a file editing mode when the audio
or video file exceeds a predetermined maximum value” (Ans. 6).
Therefore, as explained above, the Examiner finds a combination of
Yaji, Patten, HTC, Rudd, Lanza, and Lowe teaches or suggests the disputed
subject matter (see also Pinal Act. 2—9). Appellant’s arguments against
Yaji, Patten, HTC, Rudd, Lanza, and Lowe individually have not persuaded
us the Examiner erred, because “one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 P.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
See also In reMouttet, 686 P.3d 1322, 1332 (Led. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he test is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner
error. We, therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as
well as claims 15, 19-21, 27, and 33 which are not argued separately.
Claim 5
Appellant argues the combination of the references fails to teach or
suggest “the distance between the user-adjustable begin-edit icon and the
user-adjustable end-edit icon is constrained to be less than the distance that
corresponds to the predefined maximum allowable size,” as recited in claim
5 (App. Br. 16). Regarding Yaji, Appellant contends the relevant portions in
figure 6 and paragraphs 94—98 show that “the ‘ending point position
marker’ ‘corresponding to 15 second intervals’ is automatically shown”
(App. Br. 29) and the selected video clips are at a fixed duration of 15
seconds (App. Br. 30), which is different from the disputed limitation.
6
Appeal 2014-003136
Application 12/566,656
The Examiner finds Figure 8 of Yaji shows a maximum of 15 seconds
for the begin-edit icon and the end-edit icon, which designates the distance
between these two icons a maximum of 15 seconds as the recited
“predefined maximum allowable size” (Final Act. 10, Ans. 8). The
Examiner further finds modifying the adjustable edit icons disclosed by Yaji
and HTC to be constrained a maximum of 15 seconds would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (Ans. 8).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Here, too, the
Examiner concluded a combination of references—specifically, Yaji, Patten,
HTC, Rudd, Lanza, and Lowe —teaches or suggests the disputed subject
matter. Appellant’s conclusory arguments against the individual references
have not persuaded us the Examine erred. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. We
therefore sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 5 as well as
claims 22 and 28 which are not argued separately.
Claim 14
Appellant argues the combination of the references fails to teach or
suggest “in response to detecting the second input by the user, editing the
audio or video file to the second duration in accordance with the adjustments
to the begin-edit icon and the end-edit icon in the audio or video file editing
interface,” as recited in claim 14 (App. Br. 31). Regarding Yaji, Appellant
contends the relevant portions in paragraph 98 show that “the operation of
the ‘SAVE button’ occurs ‘at a confirmation screen’ (an example of which is
shown in Fig. 9 of Yaji) not ‘while displaying the audio or video file
editing interface” (App. Br. 32), which is different from the disputed
limitation.
7
Appeal 2014-003136
Application 12/566,656
The Examiner correctly finds modifying Yaji with the audio/video
editing of Lanza provides an “‘EMAIL’ button directly on the editing
interface in order to send a selected portion of the video to an email
recipient” (Ans. 9 (citing Yaji Tflf 98, 114)). These portions of Yaji teach
that the EMAIL button causes a movie be saved as an attachment file that is
sent to an email recipient in Lanza and results in editing the video file to a
second duration in response to the second user input (id.).
Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner
error. We therefore sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 14, as
well as claims 26 and 32 which are not argued separately.
Claim 8
Appellant argues the patentability of claim 8 based on the same
arguments presented for claim 1 and further assert Wells does not provide
the features that are missing in the combination of Yaji, Patten, HTC, Rudd,
Lanza, and Lowe (App. Br. 25). Lor the same reasons stated above with
respect to claim 1, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 8 as
well as claims 9, 23, 24, 29, and 30 which are not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1,5,8, 9, 14, 15,
19-24, 26-30, 32, and 33.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.L.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.L.R. § 41.50(f).
ALLIRMED
8