Ex Parte Anzures et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

12790467 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
12/790,467 05/28/2010 Freddy Allen Anzures 106842092700 (P8495US1) 1626
119082 7590 06/02/2017
Apple c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP SF
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2485
EXAMINER
CHUNG, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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, GREG CHRISTIE,
and IMRAN CHAUDHRI
Appeal 2014-004393
Application 12/790,467
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction 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. 3).
Appeal 2014-004393
Application 12/790,467
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to computing devices with
multifunctional features and intuitive interfaces for interacting with a digital
photo frame (see Spec. 1 6).
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A portable multifunction device, comprising:
a touch-sensitive display;
one or more processors;
memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs
are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the
one or more processors, the one or more programs including
instructions for:
while the multifunction device is in a user-interface
locked mode:
displaying an unlock image on the touch-
sensitive display, wherein the unlock image is a
graphical user interface object with which the user
interacts in order to transition the multifunction
device to a user-interface unlocked mode;
concurrently displaying a slide show
initiation icon;
detecting user activation of the slide show
initiation icon;
in response to detecting user activation of the
slide show initiation icon:
presenting a slide show on the touch-
sensitive display; and
maintaining the multifunction device
in the user-interface locked mode;
ceasing to display the unlock image and the
slide show initiation icon;
2
Appeal 2014-004393
Application 12/790,467
while the multifunction device is in the user-
interface locked mode and presenting the slide show,
detecting a first user input; and,
in response to detecting the first user input,
displaying the unlock image and the slide show initiation
icon.
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jobs (US 2008/0122796 Al; pub. May 29, 2008), Moll-Carrillo
(US 2009/0262088 Al; pub. Oct. 22, 2009), and Reid (US 2006/0059427
Al; pub. Mar. 16, 2006) (see Ans. 3—17).
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 6, and 11
Reference Teachings
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Jobs for teaching the
recited steps of displaying an unlock image, ceasing to display the unlock
image and an icon, and displaying the unlock image and the icon in response
to detecting the first user input (Ans. 3). The Examiner further relies on
Moll-Carrillo as teaching concurrently displaying a media icon with an
unlock image and maintaining the device in the user-interface locked mode
while the device is in a user-interface locked mode (Ans. 4). Finally, the
Examiner finds Reid discloses concurrently displaying a slide show
initiation icon with other icons, detecting user activation of the slide show
initiation icon, and in response to detecting user activation of the slide show
initiation icon presenting/displaying a slide show on the touch-sensitive
display (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine the teachings of Moll-Carrillo and Reid
3
Appeal 2014-004393
Application 12/790,467
with Jobs in order to “allow the unlock image and a media icon to appear
concurrently on the lock screen and present media in a locked state” and
“allow for the unlock image and slide show play icon to allow a user to
easily interact with a multifunction device,” respectively (Ans. 4—5 (citing
Moll-Carrillo, 1138 and Jobs col. 1:1—5)).
Appellants contend none of the applied references, alone or in
combination, discloses or suggests “displaying an unlock image on the
touch-sensitive display, wherein the unlock image is a graphical user
interface object with which the user interacts in order to transition the
multifunction device to a user-interface unlocked mode” and “concurrently
displaying a slide show initiation icon,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 12).
Appellants argue the “Power Song” button disclosed in paragraph 138 of
Moll-Carrillo causes only auditory media to be played, which “enables the
user to have ‘substantially blind control of specific functions of the mobile
device, for example while working out’” whereas the claimed slide show is
visual (App. Br. 14). Similarly, with respect to Reid, Appellants contend the
concurrent display of a slide show play button with other icons is not the
same as the recited “displaying an unlock image on the touch-sensitive
display” and “concurrently displaying a slide show initiation icon” (App.
Br. 15). Additionally, Appellants argue the cited portions of Reid do not
teach or suggest “displaying an unlock image on the touch-sensitive display”
because the claimed limitation is not met by “concurrent display of just any
two icons, but rather a specific type of icon, for initiating a slide show,
displayed in conjunction with an image having a specific functionality” (id.).
4
Appeal 2014-004393
Application 12/790,467
In response, the Examiner explains that:
Moll-Carrillo indeed teaches a slide button to unlock a screen on
a GUI, along with a media play button, which in this instance,
activates the playing of audio media. It would have been obvious
to one of ordinary [skill in the] art at the time of invention to
replace the “Power Song” button with a “slide show initiation
icon” to allow a user to play different types of media, in this case
images, along with an unlock button in a locked screen. . . .
Ultimately, Moll-Carrillo’s device includes a display, which is
present to allow a user to visually see his/her interactions with
the device.
(Ans. 17-18).
We agree with the Examiner’s characterization of Moll-Carrillo’s
media play button as the claimed “slide show initiation icon” in view of the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, which does not preclude the
user not looking at the device. In other words, contrary to Appellants’
argument that operating a button as a blind control would not meet the
claimed icon (Reply Br. 9), and as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 18), the
display in Moll-Carrillo’s device allows a user to visually interact with the
device as an added functionality instead of a limitation to the way the media
play button is operated.
Regarding the teachings of Reid, we also agree with the Examiner’s
reliance on Reid as teaching a button that allows display of a slideshow
“presented on a GUI display with other icons/buttons” (Ans. 18). That is,
Reid’s concurrent presentation of the slideshow play button with other icons
on the user interface display provides the recited functionality to the
combination of Jobs and Moll-Carrillo which teach or suggest the display of
an unlock image and an icon while the device is in a user-interface locked
mode (see Ans. 18; Final Act. 5 (citing Reid, Fig. 3,1 62)).
5
Appeal 2014-004393
Application 12/790,467
Combination of References
Appellants contend the rejection is based on “piecemeal
reconstruction and impermissible hindsight,” and the proposed combination
fails to teach or suggest “concurrently displaying an unlock image (wherein
the unlock image is a graphical user interface object with which the user
interacts in order to transition the multifunction device to a user-interface
unlocked mode) and a slide show initiation icon on a touch-sensitive
display” (App. Br. 16). Additionally, Appellants argue Moll-Carrillo’s
disclosure of the user having “blind control of the audio played on a mobile
device while working out” teaches away from the combination because the
user would not be able to view a slide show while working out (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
erred. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 19), the combination is based on
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art without the knowledge gleaned
only from Appellants’ disclosure. We also recognize that the skilled artisan
is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and this is a case in
which the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420, 421 (2007).
Further, we find no teaching away in Moll-Carrillo as it does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage playing the media when the user
is working out. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
claimed in the ... application.”); see also In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 552-53
6
Appeal 2014-004393
Application 12/790,467
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[A] reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be
productive of the result sought by the applicant.”). Under a broad but
reasonable interpretation of the claims, the requirement of viewing the slide
show by the user is not recited in claim 1, as Appellants appear to argue.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that although “blind
control” is one functionality of Moll-Carrillo, “[ultimately, Moll-Carrillo’s
device includes a display, which is present to allow a user to visually see
his/her interactions with the device” (Ans. 18). Additionally, Appellants’
contentions focus on the references separately, whereas the proposed
rejection is based on the combination of Jobs, Moll-Carrillo, and Reid. 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.”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding the disclosures of Jobs, Moll-Carrillo, and Reid
teach or suggest the disputed features of claim 1. We therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 11.
Dependent claims 2, 7, and 12
Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 17) that Moll-Carrillo fails to teach or
suggest that user activation of the “PowerSong” icon in Figure 20 results in
ceasing to display the unlock image and the icon is not persuasive because
the Examiner relied upon Jobs to teach the disputed limitation of claim 2
(see Final Act. 6). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Figures 40C
and 40D and paragraph 806 of Jobs teach that icons cease to appear after the
7
Appeal 2014-004393
Application 12/790,467
user selects or activates a play button (Ans. 19-20). As explained by the
Examiner {id.), Moll-Carrillo and Reid disclose a “slideshow initiation icon”
with an “unlock image” whereas Jobs teaches that the icons may cease to
appear when the user selects the media player icon.
As such, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner
erred in finding the disclosures of Jobs, Moll-Carrillo, and Reid teach or
suggest the disputed features of claim 2. We therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 2,1, and 12.
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Jobs, Moll-Carrillo,
and Reid teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations of claims 1, 2, 6,
7, 11, and 12. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12, as well as dependent claims 3—5, 8—10, and 13—
15 which are not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—15.
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
8