Ex Parte Bells et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2018

11616309 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111616,309 12/27/2006
63617 7590 05/24/2018
PERRY+ CURRIER INC. (BlackBerry)
1300 YONGE STREET
SUITE 500
TORONTO, ON M4T-1X3
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Bells
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Pl488USOO 2373
EXAMINER
TILLERY, RASHAWNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2018 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):
docketing@pckip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW BELLS and
SHERRYL LEE LORRAINE SCOTT 1
Appeal2018-000132
Application 11/616,309
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-26. App. Br. 10-11.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants list Research In Motion Limited as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 3, filed Oct. 29, 2012 ("App. Br.").
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents, for their respective details: the Final Office Action
mailed April 13, 2012 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed
February 27, 2013 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed March 25, 2013
("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-000132
Application 11/616,309
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
A method and apparatus for controlling display of data on
a screen of a portable electronic device. The method includes
launching an application that includes at least one field for
receiving data and at least one field label for identifying the at
least one field, entering data into the at least one field and
removing the at least one field label from the screen when data
is entered into the at least one field.
Spec., Abstract.
The claims stand rejected as follows: 3
Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 16, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Blum (US 5,805,164; issued Sept. 8, 1998),
Law (US 2007 /0061719 Al; published Mar. 15, 2007), and Yamadera
(US 2002/0123368 Al; published Sept. 5, 2002). Final Act. 3-8.
Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Blum, Law, Yamadera, and Foote (US 6,904,570 B2; issued June 7,
2005). Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Blum, Law, Yamadera, and Hawkins (US 7 ,007 ,239 B 1; issued
Feb. 28, 2006). Final Act. 9-11.
3 Appellants also appeal the Examiner's objection of claims 23, 24, and 26.
App. Br. 12. But this matter is reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.181 (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and
1201) and are thus not within the jurisdiction of the Board. In re Mindi ck,
371F.2d892, 894 (CCPA 1967).
2
Appeal2018-000132
Application 11/616,309
Claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Blum, Law, Yamadera, and Yolleck (US 2006/0179404 Al;
published Aug. 10, 2006). Final Act. 11-13.
Claims 9 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Blum, Law, Yamadera, Yolleck, and Pickering (US 2007/0101278 Al;
published May 3, 2007). Final Act. 13-14.
Claims 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Blum, Law, Yamadera, and Gauthier (US 2006/0053383 Al; published
Mar. 9, 2006). Final Act. 14--15.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Blum, Law, Yamadera, and Ozugur (US 2007/0118809 Al; published
May 24, 2007). Final Act. 15-16.
Claims 24--26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Haitani (US 7,680,513 B2; issued Mar. 16, 2010), Ozugur, and Schnarel
(US 7,225,409 Bl; issued May 29, 2007). Final Act. 16-21.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
CLAIMS 1-5, 7-16, and 18-23
Independent claim 1 illustrates the subject matter of the above-listed
claims:
1. A method for controlling display of data on a screen of a
portable electronic device, the method comprising:
3
Appeal2018-000132
Application 11/616,309
launching an application, the application having a parent-
field, in a record in a window displayed on the screen, for
receiving parent data, and a child-field for receiving child data;
providing a parent-field label on the screen to identify the
parent-field;
prompting a user to enter the parent data into the parent-
field by typing characters into the parent-field;
removing the parent-field label from the screen when the
parent data is typed into the parent-field;
displaying the child-field in the record in the window on
the screen, wherein the child-field is initially hidden but becomes
displayed once at least one character is typed into the parent-
field, the child-field including a child-field label to identify the
child-field, and thereafter;
prompting the user to enter child data into the child-field
by typing further characters into the child-field; and
removing the child-field label from the screen when the
child data is typed into the child-field.
Findings and Contentions
The Examiner finds that Blum discloses a method for controlling the
display of data on a screen of a portable electronic device that includes
( 1) launching an application having a field, in a record of a window,
displayed on the screen; (2) providing a label on the screen to identify the
field; (3) prompting a user to enter data by typing characters into the field;
and ( 4) removing the field label from the screen when the data is entered
into the field. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds that "Blum does not
explicitly disclose presenting a child-field for receiving textual data, but only
after a user has typed at least one character into the parent-field of the child-
field." Id. at 4.
4
Appeal2018-000132
Application 11/616,309
The Examiner finds that Law teaches (1) prompting a user to enter
parent data into a parent field, in a record, by typing characters into the
parent-field; (2) displaying a child-field in the record in the window on the
screen, wherein the child field is initially hidden but becomes displayed once
the parent-field is selected; and (3) prompting the user to enter the child data
into the child-field by typing further characters into the child-field. Id.
at 4--5. The Examiner further finds that Yamadera teaches "displaying an
element on the screen wherein the element is initially hidden[,] but becomes
displayed once at least one character is typed into a parent-field." Id. at 5.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Law does not teach displaying the
parent-field and child-field in the record on the screen in the same window.
App. Br. 14. According to Appellants, the relied upon "Country Selection
Form 38" of Figure 2 and the "Address Form 60/94" of Figures 4, 5 are
formed within different windows-not within the same window. App.
Br. 15.
Analysis
Law does not appear to indicate that the two relied-upon forms are
provided in the same window of the screen. See Law, Figs. 2, 4, 5; see
generally id., Spec. Also, the Examiner does not respond to Appellants'
argument that Law's two forms are provided in different windows. See
Ans. 4--5. We, therefore, do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1,
of independent claim 12, which recites similar language, or of claims 5, 11,
16, and 22, which depend from claims 1 and 12.
We likewise do not sustain the obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 2--4, 7-10, 13-15, 18-21, and 23. The Examiner does not rely on any
5
Appeal2018-000132
Application 11/616,309
of the additionally cited references to cure the deficiency noted above in
relation to independent claim 1.
CLAIMS 24--26
Claims 24--26 are directed to a different aspect of Appellants'
disclosure. Independent claim 24 illustrates the subject matter of this
additional aspect:
24. A method for displaying a list of contacts in an address
book application of a portable electronic device, the method
compnsmg:
providing the list of contacts, the list including at least one
contact name, a name record of the contact name being stored in
the address book application; and
providing visual icon identifiers adjacent each contact
name, and on a same line as each the contact name, each [of] the
visual icon identifier[ s] being associated with a respective
populated field of the name record;
wherein each [of] the visual icon identifier[ s] is provided
when a corresponding populated field of the name record for the
contact name is populated to provide a summary of information
contained in the name record, each [of] the visual icon
identifier[ s is] customized to differentiate between different
types of fields in the name record, and every populated field in
the name record is represented by a different visual identifier.
Findings and Contentions
The Examiner finds that Haitani teaches, inter alia, a method for
displaying a list of contacts in an address book application that comprises
( 1) providing the list of contacts, the list including at least one contact name;
and (2) providing visual identifiers adjacent each contact name, each
identifier being associated with a respective populated field of the name
6
Appeal2018-000132
Application 11/616,309
record. Final Act. 16-17 (citing Haitani, Fig. 5A). The Examiner
additionally finds that Haitani further teaches
wherein each [of] the visual identifier[ s] is provided when a
corresponding populated field of [the] same name record for the
contact name is populated to provide a summary of information
contained in the name record, each [of] the visual identifier[ s is]
customized to differentiate between different types of fields in
same name record, and every populated field in same name
record is represented by a different visual identifier.
Id. at 17.
The Examiner finds that "although Haitani teaches displaying visual
identifiers associated with respective populated fields of name records, it
does not explicitly disclose that the identifiers are a plurality of icons
displayed on the same line as the contact name." Id. at 18. The Examiner
finds that Ozugur also teaches a method for displaying a list of contacts in an
address book application, and Ozugur's list includes a contact-information-
type icon that indicates whether the phone number provided for the contact
is a home, office, mobile or some other type of number. Id. (citing Ozugur,
Fig. 2, i-fi-127, 30). According to the Examiner, the contact-information-type
icon is displayed on the same line as the contact names, as well as icons for
instant messaging and e-mail. Id. (citing Ozugur, Figs. 2-8).
The Examiner additionally finds that "Schnarel teaches providing
multiple visual icon identifiers adjacent contact names, and on a same line as
the contact names, (e.g., row of icons that is displayed to the right of the user
account name field .... )" Id. (citing Schnarel, col. 7, 11. 41-50, Fig. 3).
The Examiner determines that motivation existed to combine Haitani
"with the teachings of Ozugur that such an indicator could consist of an
icon, and [to combine Haitani] further with the teachings of Schnarel of
7
Appeal2018-000132
Application 11/616,309
displaying multiple visual icon identifiers adjacent to each contact name."
Id. at 19.
Appellants argue that both Haitani and Ozugur teach away from the
claimed features. App. Br. 19. According to Appellants, the passages of
Haitani cited by the Examiner "merely show results of a look up feature in a
contact database and not a list of contacts as presently claimed." Id. (citing
Haitani, col. 17, 1. 35---col. 18, 1. 9). Appellants contend that in Haitani,
[i]nformation from multiple contact records that match a user's
entry are displayed in a window, including a set of
communication identifiers provided in a column below each
entry, for example a list of phone numbers, one underneath the
other, each phone number including a letter-identifier of the
phone number (e.g. "W", "H", or "M").
Id. Appellants summarize that Haitani represents one of the problems that
the presently claimed subject matter is addressing-addressing the problem
of data fields being provided one under the other by providing visual icon
identifiers adjacent and on the same line as each contact name. Id.
Appellants next argue that neither Ozugur nor Schnarel teaches the
limitation of displaying a plurality of the icons, as claimed, on the same line
as the contact name. Id. at 20. Appellants argue that "Ozugur discloses a
contact information type icon 218[] that indicates whether a SINGLE phone
number provided for the contact, is a home number, an office number, a
mobile number, or some other type of number." Id. Appellants argue that
Ozugur does not teach providing icons that correspond to populated fields.
Id. at 21. They also argue that Ozugur only teaches one icon per line and
includes no indication of how to provide more than one icon. Id.
Appellants argue that "Schnarel ... merely discloses a graphical user
interface for a web telephone ... to show a unique combination of display
8
Appeal2018-000132
Application 11/616,309
elements that provide information and enable the user to access functionality
of the device." Id. Appellants argue more particularly that Schnarel only
depicts a new-message list that includes a row of icons to the right of the
user account name field. Id. According to Appellants, these icons are only
displayed when a new message exists, and the icons only indicate the types
of messages that are present (e.g., a notepad, answering machine, or e-mail
message). Id.
Analysis
Haitani teaches that a contact record associated with a contact name
may have various fields populated with information. See, e.g., Haitani,
Fig. 5 (depicting fields for a mobile phone number, a work phone number,
and a home phone number). Ozugur teaches that icons may be associated
with contact records. See, e.g., Ozugur, Fig. 2 (depicting contact presence
icon 216 associated with each contact record). Schnarel teaches that icons
may be presented on the same line as the name for a contact record. See,
e.g., Schnarel, Fig. 3 (depicting icons indicating the types of messages that
are present). However, none of Haitani, Ozugur, or Schnarel teaches distinct
icons that respectively represent each of the populated fields for a contact
record.
The manner in which the references have been combined to arrive at
such a use of icons, as claimed, appears to be the result of impermissible
hindsight based on knowledge gleaned only from Appellants' disclosure.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971). Accordingly,
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 24. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of that
claim, or of claims 25 and 26, which depend from claim 24.
9
Appeal2018-000132
Application 11/616,309
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-26 is
reversed.
REVERSED
10