Ex Parte CHOI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2017

14092390 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 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.
14/092,390 11/27/2013 Jinho CHOI 1398-585 8302
(YPF201209-0049)
66547 7590 04/26/2017
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
NICHOLAS, WENDY K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2017 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):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINHO CHOI
Appeal 2017-001191
Application 14/092,390
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 seeks our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of Claims 1—6, 8—24, 26, and 27. App. Br. 4. Claims 7 and 25 are
1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed June 20, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed October 24, 2016 (“Reply Br.”);
the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 24, 2016 (“Ans.”); the Final Office
Action mailed December 30, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and the original
Specification filed November 27, 2013 (“Spec.”).
2 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
3 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal 2017-001191
Application 14/092,390
canceled. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to methods, an apparatus, and an article of
manufacture for displaying on a touchscreen a plurality of content arranged
as master content linked to selected content. See Abstract. Claims 1, 15, 19,
and 27 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s invention, as
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized and some formatting
added:
1. A method for content processing comprising the steps of:
displaying a plurality of stored content;
determining whether an input is received for moving a
selected content of the plurality of stored content onto a target
content of the plurality of stored content;
configuring the target content as a master content of the
selected content, when the input is received;
linking the selected content to the master content;
displaying an indicator of the selected content on the
master content; and
displaying a detailed view window showing the master
content and all the linked selected content, when the master
content is selected.
2
Appeal 2017-001191
Application 14/092,390
References
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Yamagami
Seki, et al.
US 6,334,025 B1
US 6,570,597 B1
US 8,266,550 B1
Dec. 25,2001
May 27, 2003
Sept. 11,2012
Mar. 4,2010
Dec. 30, 2010
Mar. 31,2011
May 19, 2011
May 30, 2013
Cleron, et al.
Chung, et al
Lee, et al.
US 2010/0058215 Al
US 2010/0332226 Al
US 2011/0074812 Al
US 2011/0119611 Al
US 2013/0139107 Al
Matsumoto, et al.
Ahn, et al.
Jung
Examiner s Rejections
1. Claims 1—3, 6, 9, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lee and Yamagami. Ans. 2—5; Linal Act.
3-5, 6-8.
2. Claims 4, 5, 8, 14, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Lee, Yamagami, and Chung. Ans. 2; Linal Act. 8—10.
3. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Lee, Yamagami, and Seki. Ans. 2; Linal Act. 10-11.
4. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Lee, Yamagami, Seki, and Jung. Ans. 2; Linal Act. 11—12.
5. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Matsumoto. Linal Act. 5—6.
6. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Matsumoto and Cleron. Linal Act. 13.
7. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Matsumoto, Cleron, and Ahn. Linal Act. 14.
3
Appeal 2017-001191
Application 14/092,390
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—6, 8—24, 26, and 27 in
light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered
in this decision, only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs.
Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded Appellant identifies reversible error.
Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are
unpatentable. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, to
the extent consistent with our analysis below. We provide the following
explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings
primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they
are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4—10, and in the Reply Brief, pages
1-10.
Claims 1,19, and 27: Obviousness over Lee and Yamagami
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “displaying a detailed view window
showing the master content and all the linked selected content, when the
master content is selected.” Claims 19 and 27 recite similar recitations.
App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 6.
Appellant argues neither Lee nor Yamagami teaches displaying the
recited detailed view. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4—6. Specifically, Appellant
contends Lee teaches displaying voice contents as an image. App. Br. 6
4
Appeal 2017-001191
Application 14/092,390
(citing Lee Fig. 21, 53a). Appellant additionally asserts Yamagami teaches
displaying enlarged versions of image contents, but not text contents or
voice contents. App. Br. 6 (citing Yamagami Fig. 7, 705, 706). According
to Appellant, Yamagami teaches icons indicating text or audio linked to an
image file, but not content associated with the icons. Reply Br. 4 (citing
Yamagami Fig. 5 and 7). Appellant further argues that Claim 1 requires
playing the linked selected content. Reply Br. 5—6 (citing Spec. 145).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Indeed, Appellant is
arguing limitations not recited in the claim. Appellant’s Specification
describes displaying a detailed view window and playing a content item in
the detailed view window, if the content item is selected. See Spec. 145.
If the user selects the master content configured as described with
reference to FIGS. 2 and 3, the control unit 100 displays a detailed
view window 330 showing a master content item 331 and linked
content items 333. If a content item is selected from the detailed view
window, the controller 100 executes an application corresponding to
the selected content item to play the content.
Spec. 145. Claim 1, however, does not require playing the linked selected
content. Instead, the claim merely requires “displaying a detailed view
window showing the master content and all the linked selected content,
when the master content is selected” (emphasis added). The Examiner relies
upon Yamagami, not Lee, to teach the recited detailed view window. Ans.
6. The Examiner finds Yamagami teaches the recited detailed view window
including master content of an image linked to audio content 705 and text
content 706. Ans. 6 (citing Yamagami col. 11,11. 6—21, Fig. 7); Yamagami
col. 11,11. 17—21 (“[T]he display at this time is presented as a display section
701 for the enlarged image,. . ., and icons 705, 706 representing linked
5
Appeal 2017-001191
Application 14/092,390
plurality of audio and text items, respectively.”). We agree with the
Examiner that the icons 705, 706 teach the recited “all the linked selected
content” because the icons, like thumbnails in graphical user interfaces, can
be selected to play the underlying content. Ans. 6; see Yamagami, col. 12,
11. 27—34; see Spec. 145. In view of the foregoing, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1.
Appellant asserts Claims 19 and 27 are patentable for the same
reasons as Claim 1. App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 6. Accordingly, we find no
error in the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 19 and 27.
Claims 2,3,6,9,20,21,24, and 26: Obviousness over Lee and
Yamagami
Appellant contends Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 20, 21, 24, and 26 are patentable
in view of their arguments discussed above with respect to Claim 1. App. Br.
4; Reply Br. 6.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
Claims 4, 5, 8,14,22, and 23: Obviousness over Lee, Yamagami
and Chung
Appellant contends Claims 4, 5, 8, 14, 22, and 23 are patentable in view
of their arguments discussed above with respect to Claim 1. App. Br. 4; Reply
Br. 6.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
Claims 10 and 11: Obviousness over Lee, Yamagami
and Seki
6
Appeal 2017-001191
Application 14/092,390
Appellant contends Claims 10 and 11 are patentable in view of their
arguments discussed above with respect to Claim 1. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 6.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
Claims 12 and 13: Obviousness over Lee, Yamagami, Seki
and Jung
Appellant contends Claims 12 and 13 are patentable in view of their
arguments discussed above with respect to Claim 1. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 6.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
Claim 15: Anticipation by Matsumoto
Appellant argues Matsumoto does not describe “displaying an indicator
of content linked to master content on the master content,” as recited in
independent Claim 15. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 7. First, Appellant asserts
“linked” means to make or have a link to another webpage or electronic
document. App. Br. 8. Second, Appellant contends Matsumoto describes
including an image 40 into a document. App. Br. 8 (citing Matsumoto Fig. 8,
11 36, 80); Reply Br. 7. According to Appellant, the image 40 cannot be
clicked to cause a web page to be displayed as an indicator of content. App.
Br. 9. Furthermore, Appellant argues the image 40 as an object in XML format
has path attributed to it. Reply Br. 7—9 (citing Matsumoto Fig. 4, H 55—56).
However, Appellant asserts that this path relates image 40 to a file on the
server, but does not relate the file on the server to the base image 36. Reply
Br. 8 (citing Matsumoto Fig. 4, H 55—56).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner
interprets “linked” more broadly than Appellant does. Ans. 7. We agree with
7
Appeal 2017-001191
Application 14/092,390
the Examiner that “linked” should be construed as representing a relationship
between items. Ans. 7. This interpretation is broad, but reasonable, and
consistent with Appellant’s Specification. See Spec. 1 39, Fig. 3 (“[A]n
indicator of content linked to master content is displayed.”). Contrary to
Appellant’s argument, Appellant’s Specification does not describe “linked” as
making another webpage or electronic document. See Spec. Tflf 39-41. Nor
does Appellant’s Specification define explicitly the term “linked.”
We agree with Appellant that Matsumoto describes the XML format as
linking attributes of image 40 to a management file on the server to maintain
the attributes of image 40 on base image 36. See Matsumoto Tflf 50, 55—56.
Nevertheless, the Examiner finds image 40 describes an indicator of added
information linked to the base image 36. Final Act. 5—6 (citing Matsumoto |
36).
Also, the client PC 2 can add an object such as a comment, a
symbol indicating a person or a vehicle, a pattern such as a circle, a line
such as an arrow or a reduced image to the acquired document w/image
as added information. This added information, at the request of the
client PC 2, is uploaded to the Web server la through the internet 3. In
the Web server la, the added information thus acquired is stored in the
data base lb in the form related to the document w/image corresponding
to the image document with the particular information added by the
client PC 2 in the data base lb.
Matsumoto 1 36. Specifically, Matsumoto discloses that a reduced image
indicating a person or a vehicle as added information is added to a document
w/image. See Matsumoto 1 36. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Matsumoto describes the recited displaying an indicator of content linked to
master content on the master content.
8
Appeal 2017-001191
Application 14/092,390
Appellant contends Matsumoto does not describe “releasing a link
between the content and the master content, when the input is received,” as
recited in independent Claim 15. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 9. According to
Appellant, “Matsumoto discloses deleting an object, not a link.” App. Br. 9
(citing Matsumoto 1 89). Appellant further argues Matsumoto does not
disclose deleting the path attribute of image 40 when image 40 is deleted.
Reply Br. 9 (citing Matsumoto 1 55, Fig. 1).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds
objects, such as image 40, may be removed from documents with the eraser
icon as an input. Ans. 8 (citing Matsumoto 189). We agree with the Examiner
that removal of the object simultaneously deletes the added information to
release the link between the added information, and the document. Ans. 8
(citing Matsumoto 189); see Matsumoto 189 (“[T]he object corresponding to
the object column 46 of the tab 35 is deleted, while at the same time deleting
the object column 46 corresponding to this object.”). Thus, Matsumoto
describes deleting the object column as additional information linked to the
document thereby releasing the link between the object column and the
document. See Matsumoto 1 89. As discussed above, the path attribute to
linking attributes of image 40 to another file is separate from the column
object as additional information linked to the document. See Reply Br. 9; see
Matsumoto H 50, 55—56. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
independent Claim 15.
Claims 16 and 17: Obviousness over Matsumoto
and Cleron
9
Appeal 2017-001191
Application 14/092,390
Appellant contends Claims 16 and 17 are patentable in view of their
arguments discussed above with respect to independent Claim 15. App. Br.
10; Reply Br. 10.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
Claim 18: Obviousness over Matsumoto, Cleron
and Ahn
Appellant contends Claim 18 is patentable in view of their arguments
discussed above with respect to independent Claim 15. App. Br. 10; Reply
Br. 10.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—6, 8—24, 26, and 27 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
10