Ex Parte Fagans et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 6, 201713565700 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/565,700 08/02/2012 Joshua Fagans 18814-0065002/P4953USC1 8179 26183 7590 02/08/2017 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (APPLE) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER BELOUSOV, ANDREY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2145 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/08/2017 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSHUA FAGANS, SIMEON LEIFER, and RANDY UBILLOS Appeal 2016-003027 Application 13/565,700 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2016-003027 Application 13/565,700 INVENTION Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to a method for use in an interface to upload and display multiple electronic images. Abstract, Specification 1,5. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: displaying concurrently, on a display device associated with a computer system, a plurality of display regions, each display region corresponding to a respective container at a remote location operatively coupled to the computer system over a network, wherein each container includes at least two content items including a first content item and a second content item; dividing each display region into at least two portions, wherein each portion corresponds to one of the at least two items; and upon detecting a positioning of a position indicator in a first portion of the at least two portions of a particular display region, transmitting a request to the remote location for the first content item that is stored in a particular container to which the particular display region corresponds, receiving the first content item, and displaying the first content item in the particular display region. 2 Appeal 2016-003027 Application 13/565,700 REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Drucker (US 2004/0143598 Al, July 22, 2004) and Oliver (US 6,816,272 B2, Nov. 9, 2004). Final Act 2-7.1 ISSUES Independent Claim 1 Appellants argue, on pages 5 through 13 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1 and 7 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues: 1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Drucker and Oliver teaches the claim limitation directed to dividing each display region into at least two portions? 2) Did the Examiner err in finding the skilled artisan would combine Drucker’s display method with Oliver’s system of downloading images? Dependent claim 7 Appellants argue, on page 14 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 7 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Drucker and Oliver teaches the claim limitation directed to detecting a position indicator in a second portion of the at least two portions? 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 30, 2015, Reply Brief filed January 29, 2016, Final Action mailed November 20, 2014, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on December 1, 2015. 3 Appeal 2016-003027 Application 13/565,700 Dependent claim 8 Appellants argue, on pages 14 and 15 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 8 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Drucker and Oliver teaches the claim limitation directed to detecting a position indicator outside a display region and displaying a default item of the at least two item in the region? Dependent claim 10 Appellants argue, on page 15 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 10 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Drucker and Oliver teaches the claim limitation directed to when the number of content items in a container exceeds a threshold and upon detection forming at least two groups of items? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 7 and 11 through 18. However, we concur with Appellants that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8 through 10, 19, and 20. Independent Claim 1 Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue assert the rejection of independent claim 1 is in error as the references do not teach the limitation 4 Appeal 2016-003027 Application 13/565,700 directed to dividing each display region into at least two portions, upon detecting a positioning of a position indicator in a first portion of the at least two portions of a particular display region and displaying a first content item. Specifically, Appellants assert that Drucker teaches displaying small or partial versions of media objects and displaying an enlarged version when selected. App. Br. 5—6; Reply Br. 1—3. Appellants assert: As claimed, it does not matter if the first portion displays a thumbnail or it is empty space because it is the first portion, not what is displayed in the first portion, which corresponds to a media object. In Drucker, on the other hand, the portion of the media object that is displayed in the media display component is vital because it is that portion of the media object that corresponds to an enlarged version of the same media object. Reply Br. 3. Additionally, Appellants argue Oliver is like Drucker in that it does not teach associating a portion of a display region to a full version of the file as claimed. App. Br. 8—9. Further, Appellants argue, because neither Drucker nor Oliver teaches associating a portion of a display region to a full version, the combination of the references does not teach the limitation. App. Br. 9—10. Thus, these three arguments are premised on the assertion that the combination of Drucker and Oliver does not teaches the claim limitation directed to dividing each display region into at least two portions. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments on pages 5 through 8 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response and the evidence relied upon by the Examiner and concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion. Specifically, the Examiner cites to Drucker’s Figure 25 (we note Figure 23 provides an annotated view of the clusters), and maps each of the clusters to the claimed 5 Appeal 2016-003027 Application 13/565,700 display regions (see marked up Figure 25 on page 6 of the Answer). Answer 6—7. Further, the Examiner finds the thumbnails (or portions of thumbnails) in Figure 25 map to the claimed portions of the display area, noting the part of the display area occupied by the thumbnail corresponds to the claimed portion. Id. We concur with the Examiner’s claim interpretation. While we understand Appellants point that the portion is associated with the media object and not the thumbnail, as Drucker’s thumbnail identifies portions of the display region, and the cursor being positioned over the thumbnail (a portion of the display) causes a display of the media object, we consider the disputed claim limitation to be met by Drucker. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue assert a skilled artisan would be motivated against the combination as it amounts to extra work. App. Br. 10. Appellants reason that Drucker teaches receiving the media objects in their entirety before determining if the cursor moves over an object in the display and as such there is no reason to request the media after the determination. App. Br. 11 (citing Drucker para. 95). Further, Appellants argue Drucker does not suggest annotating an image without retrieving the image in its entirety. App. Br. 12—13. As such, Appellants assert the skilled artisan would have been motivated against combining the references. The Examiner, in response to Appellants’ arguments, finds Drucker teaches receiving items in their entirety and annotating them is optional and that Drucker teaches the display can be used with searching or browsing 6 Appeal 2016-003027 Application 13/565,700 across a network and the system can provide links to objects. Answer 8 (citing Drucker paras. 74 and 93). We concur with the Examiner, as we find Drucker does make reference to obtaining information from remote sources over a network and Drucker’s teachings of the display are not limited to the annotation feature. As such, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Drucker discourages the skilled artisan from combining the transmitting a request to a remote location and receiving a response, features of Oliver with Drucker’s display. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 1 have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2 through 6 and 11 through 18, which are not separately argued and are grouped with claim 1. Dependent claim 7 Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 7 are similar to those presented in claim 1, in that Appellants argue the references do not teach portions of a display region associated with media objects. Answer 14. As discussed above, we concur with the Examiner that Drucker teaches the portions of a display region. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Dependent claim 8 Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 8 assert the combination of Drucker and Oliver does not teach the claim limitation directed upon detecting a position indicator outside a display region, displaying a default 7 Appeal 2016-003027 Application 13/565,700 item of the at least two item items in the region. App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellants argue that even if the Examiner’s mapping of Drucker’s media objects 2540 (or 2640) to the claimed media objects is proper, the claim is not met as Drucker does not teach another media object is displayed after a mouse cursor moves away from the media object display area as claimed. App. Br. 15 (citing Figures 25 and 26). The Examiner in response to Appellants’ argument finds Drucker teaches the media item is enlarged only while the mouse remains over the device; as such when the mouse is outside the display region only a smaller image (a default) is displayed. Answer 10. While we agree with the Examiner’s finding, we do not find this teaching meets the claims, as the Examiner’s mapping of the claims to Drucker equates the larger images with the claimed media objects, and the Examiner has not shown one of the larger images is displayed as a default as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 8, claim 9 (which depends upon claim 8), and dependent claim 19 which recites similar limitations. Dependent claim 10 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Drucker and Oliver teaches the claim limitation directed when the number of content items in a container exceeds a threshold and upon detection forming at least two groups of items. App. Br. 15. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner provides a detailed explanation on pages 10 and 11 of the Answer. In this response the Examiner assumes the threshold as being one. Answer 10. We disagree with the Examiner’s rationale. Claim 1 recites each container including at 8 Appeal 2016-003027 Application 13/565,700 least two content items, and claim 10 recites that if the threshold is exceeded, there are at least two groups of content comprising at least two items (but less than all of the items of the container). Thus, by the terms of the claims the threshold would be four or higher (two groups of two). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 and claim 20 which recites similar limitation to claim 10. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 7 and 11 through 18. We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8 through 10, 19, and 20. AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation