Ex Parte Briand et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13434384 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/434,384 03/29/2012
27367 7590 09/29/2016
WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, PA
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND A VENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hyacinthe Briand
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.
F7l.l2-0126 4068
EXAMINER
NICHOLAS, WENDY K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYACINTHE BRIAND, BOSCO SO, ASHA VELLAIKAL,
GABRIEL SIDHOM, and GEORGES NARON
Appeal2015-004448
Application 13/434,3841
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN D. HAMANN, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates to mobile devices or handsets,
and more specifically to mobile devices handling touch based inputs." Spec.
1, 11. 10-11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is France Telecom. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2015-004448
Application 13/434,384
reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight the dispositive disputed
limitation.
1. A method for sharing a media content displayed in a
window of a first graphical user interface (GUI) of an electronic
device with at least one end point, the first GUI comprising the
window and data displayed around the window, said electronic
device comprising a processor controlling said first GUI, the
method being carried out by said processor and comprising:
capturing a user input within the window,
generating a second GUI comprising:
the window in the same position as in the first
GUI, and
a free space between contours of the second GUI
and the window, the free space being obtained by erasing
the data displayed around the window in the first GUI,
rendering the second GUI in place of the first GUI, and
displaying a virtual representation of the end point
in the free space.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hunt et al.
(US 2010/0070899 Al; published Mar. 18, 2010) (hereinafter "Hunt") and
Chaudhri et al. (US 2006/0277469 Al; published Dec. 7, 2006) (hereinafter
"Chaudhri"), collectively referred to as "the combination" hereinafter.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Hunt, Chaudhri, and Erhart et
al. (US 2006/0107303 Al; published May 18, 2006) (hereinafter "Erhart").
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hunt, Chaudhri, and Iwamura
(US 5,883,621; issued Mar. 16, 1999).
2
Appeal2015-004448
Application 13/434,384
DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the Examiner errs in
finding the cited portions of the combination, and Hunt in particular, teach
or suggest "generating a second GUI comprising[] the window in the same
position as in the first GUI," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in
claims 10 and 12.
ANALYSIS
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive with respect to the cited
portions of the combination, and Hunt in particular, failing to teach or
suggest the above dispositive, disputed limitation.
Appellants argue the Examiner ignores the claim language requiring
that "the window [is] in the same position" in the GUis. Reply Br. 2.
Appellants contend the combination, and Hunt in particular, fails to teach or
suggest that the window in the second GUI is in the same position as it is in
the first GUI. App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants first argue Hunt
teaches two separate graphical elements (i) the window 504 of shareable
content in the first GUI and (ii) the thumbnail window 520 of the selected,
shareable content in the second GUI- "[i]n other words, thumbnail 520 is
not the window 504." See Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Hunt i-fi-f 102-103, Figs. 5A,
5C). Appellants then argue that the thumbnail window 520 is displayed
while the window 504 of the first GUI is still present and visible in another
portion of the second GUI - thus, demonstrating the window is not in the
same position. See App. Br. 3 (citing Hunt Figs. 5A-5C). Accordingly,
Appellants argue that Hunt does not teach or suggest having the window in
the same position in the second GUI.
3
Appeal2015-004448
Application 13/434,384
The Examiner finds the combination, and Hunt in particular, teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 2-3. Specifically, the
Examiner finds Hunt teaches or suggests a window (framing shareable
content) 504 from a first GUI, which is part of and represented by thumbnail
520 in the same position in the second GUI- "[t]he nature of a drag and
drop operation is to begin with the selected content at the same position."
Id. (citing Hunt i-f 103, Figs. 5A, 5C).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with
Appellants that the cited portions of Hunt fail to teach or suggest the window
in the second GUI being in the same position as in the first GUI. See Hunt
i-fi-1102-103, Figs. 5A-5C (teaching that the smaller thumbnail window 520
in the second GUI is in a different position (displaced up and to the right)
than the larger shareable content window 504).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
10, and 12, as well as claims 3-9, which depend directly or indirectly from
claim 1 and incorporate the disputed limitation.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, and 12.
REVERSED
4