Ex Parte Faenger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

12621728 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
1576-1572 3029
EXAMINER
NG, AMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/621,728 11/19/2009
10800 7590 12/29/2016
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Jens Faenger
12/29/2016 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 JENS FAENGER
Appeal 2014-000780
Application 12/621,728
Technology Center 2100
Before DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and JOSEPH P.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—16, 18, and 20—22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-000780
Application 12/621,728
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Claims 1 and 15 are exemplary:
1. A method of operating an entertainment system having a
user interface including a plurality of menus, the method comprising
the computer-implemented steps of:
receiving a menu selection via the user interface, the menu
selection being associated with a menu of the plurality of menus;
displaying the menu on the user interface in response to
receiving the menu selection;
receiving a store command to store the menu selection;
storing the menu selection; and
associating the stored menu selection with a key of the
entertainment system such that activation of the key causes retrieval
of the menu associated with the stored menu selection and displaying
of the menu associated with the stored menu selection on the user
interface.
15. A method of operating an entertainment system having a
user interface, the method comprising the computer-implemented
steps of:
receiving a store command to store a playlist and a playback
mode;
storing the playlist and playback mode; and
associating the stored playlist and playback mode with a key of
the entertainment system.
2 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief for the positions of Appellant and the Final Office Action and
Answer for the positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal 2014-000780
Application 12/621,728
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
overU.S. Publication 2003/0090471 (published May 15, 2003) (hereinafter,
“Slaunwhite”) and U.S. Patent 7,379,721 B2 (issued May 27, 2008)
(hereinafter, “Doudnikoff’). Ans. 3.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 7,539,795 B2 (issued May 26, 2009)
(hereinafter, “Vahtola”). Ans. 3.
ANALYSIS
1. Claims 1—14
Appellant asserts that the limitations of claim 1 are neither taught nor
suggested by Slaunwhite and Dounikoff, alone or in combination, because
Slaunwhite “does not disclose a menu selection being associated with a key,
wherein the menu selection is associated with a menu of a plurality of
menus.” App. Br. 9-10. In particular, Appellant argues that Slaunwhite
describes associating an item type, rather than a menu selection, with a
shortcut key, and that an item type is not the claimed “menu selection
associated with a menu of a plurality of menus.” Id. In support of its
arguments, Appellant relies on Slaunwhite’s disclosure of assigning a
shortcut key “with an item type and not with any instance of’ a menu. Id.
(citing Slaunwhite 50-51). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments. Slauwhite discloses that an “item type” refers to a kind of item,
and provides as an example a “File-New button.” Slaunwhite 129.
Slaunwhite further discloses that there can be several instances of an item
type — for example, the item type “File-New button” can appear in more
than one menu. Id. at 135. The Examiner finds that when the shortcut key
3
Appeal 2014-000780
Application 12/621,728
associated with an item type is entered, a menu associated with the item type
is retrieved and displayed. Ans. 5. In particular, the Examiner refers to
Figure 6 of Slaunwhite depicting item type “Send To” 214 associated with
popup menu 216. Id. (citing Slaunwhite 155; see also id. at Fig. 6).
Slaunwhite teaches that when the shortcut key “Alt+S” is pressed, popup
window 216 (e.g., a menu associated with item type “Send To”) is retrieved
and displayed. Slaunwhite 155, Fig. 7. Applying a broadest reasonable
interpretation, Slaunwhite’s “item type,” e.g., “Send To,” is a menu selection
because it is an item on a menu. Moreover, the “item type,” e.g., “Send To,”
is associated with a menu, e.g., popup window 216. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Slaunwhite fails to teach or suggest
a menu selection being associated with a key, wherein the menu selection is
associated with a menu of a plurality of menus.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims
2, 3, and 5—7 depending therefrom. We also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 8—14 for which Appellant does not provide additional
arguments.
With respect to claim 4, which depends from claim 1, Appellant
asserts that the Examiner has not demonstrated that Slauwhite teaches claim
elements directed to a “sub-menu” because Slaunwhite discloses only a
single layer of a menu system in connection with shortcut keys, and does not
suggest using shortcut keys with two different hierarchical layers of a menu
system. App. Br. 11. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the Examiner finds
that Slaunwhite teaches both menus and sub-menus, and in particular, finds
that the menu associated with “Send To” is an example of a sub-menu of a
“File menu.” Ans. 6 (citing Slaunwhite Fig. 6). Appellant does not explain
4
Appeal 2014-000780
Application 12/621,728
why Slaunwhite fails to disclose a menu and sub-menu as found by the
Examiner, or how the Examiner’s findings are in error.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
2. Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20—22
Claim 15 recites receiving a store command to store a playlist and
playback mode, saving the playlist and playback mode, and associating a
key with the stored playlist and playback mode. At issue is whether Vahtola
describes the claimed “playback mode.” App. Br. 12—13. According to
Appellant, a “playback mode” refers to an algorithm defining the manner in
which items in a playback list are played, and provides as examples of
playback modes a “shuffle” or “random” playback mode in which songs in a
playlist are played in random order and a “sequential” or normal playback
mode in which songs are played in sequential order. Id. at 13. Appellant
argues that Vahtola is silent with respect to a “playback mode.” Id. The
Examiner does not dispute that Vahtola does not expressly describe a
particular playback mode, but finds that the media player in Vahtola
“inherently has at least one ‘playback mode’, else the player would not be
able to play the media.” Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds that Vahtola
describes storing the state of the media player when the short cut key is
created, and that the playback mode is necessarily saved. Id. Appellant
does not address these findings by the Examiner, namely that the media
player in Vahtola inherently has at least one playback mode that is
necessarily saved. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, and
claims 16, 18, and 20 not argued separately.
5
Appeal 2014-000780
Application 12/621,728
Claim 21 depends from claim 15, and further recites that the playback
mode comprises a shuffle playback mode or a sequential playback mode.
Appellant asserts, and the Examiner does not find otherwise, that Vahtola is
silent with regard to either a shuffle playback mode or sequential playback
mode. App. Br. 13; Ans. 6. The Examiner finds, nonetheless, that Vahtola’s
use of a playlist inherently describes a sequential playback mode, and that
shuffle playback modes were well-known in the art at the time of invention.
Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds that the state information that is saved in
Vahtola is analogous to playback mode information. Final Act. 11. In
support of the finding that playback modes, including shuffle, were well
known in the art, the Examiner relies on Appellant’s admission in the
Appeal Brief that “playback modes” were well known in the art and “when
offered, invariably include at least a normal mode in which the songs in the
playlist are played back in order and possibly repeated; and a ‘shuffle’ or
‘random’ mode.” Ans. 6 (citing App. Br. 12—13). Appellant does not
address sufficiently these findings by the Examiner. In the Reply Brief
Appellant argues that any playback mode in Vahtola is not associated with a
key, but does not explain the basis of its argument, or address the
Examiner’s findings that the playback mode would be saved as part of the
state information that is saved in Vahtola. Reply Br. 8.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
Claim 22 depends indirectly from claim 15, and further recites, in
pertinent part, the further step of offering a user options relating to the
playback of a playlist “including: starting the playlist from the beginning . . .
continuing playback at a same position in the playlist when the store
command was received; and continuing playback with a most recent item
6
Appeal 2014-000780
Application 12/621,728
played from the playlist.” Appellant asserts that Vahtola is silent with
regard to offering options to a user as claimed. App. Br. 9. Appellant’s
assertion that Vahtola is silent with respect to the claim feature at issue is not
persuasive because it does not address sufficiently the Examiner’s findings
that the feature is disclosed by the teachings of Vahtola regarding resuming
the stored state of a media player upon activation of a shortcut key. Ans. 7;
Final Act. 11—12. In particular, Vahtola discloses saving state information
reflected in the playlist window when the shortcut is created and, at a later
time when a user selects the shortcut, launching the MP3 management and
playback software into a state corresponding to the saved state information.
Vahtola 5:44—60. Because the user can create the shortcut key at any point
during the playback of the playlist, Vahtola’s MP3 management and
playback software offers the user options relating to the playback of a
playlist “including: starting the playlist from the beginning . . . continuing
playback at a same position in the playlist when the store command was
received; and continuing playback with a most recent item played from the
playlist,” as required by claim 22.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—16, 18, and 20—22 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7