Ex Parte Gulezian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 10, 201814094638 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018) 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. 14/094,638 12/02/2013 David Gulezian 31VL-174267 4387 69849 7590 01/12/2018 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 379 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 EXAMINER KIYABU, KARIN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2695 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/12/2018 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): svpatents @ sheppardmullin.com S heppardMullin_Pair @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID GULEZIAN, RICHARD TURNER BARKER, NATHANIEL ANTHONY FAST, and ROD WIN PABELLO Appeal 2017-008229 Application 14/094,63 81 Technology Center 2600 Before THU A. DANG, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Viscira LLC, which is identified in the Brief as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-008229 Application 14/094,638 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a method presentation selection by device orientation, and device and system thereof. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: an orientation-sensitive context switching subsystem of an orientation-sensitive context switching device; a presentation display subsystem; a presentation navigation subsystem; a presentation state datastore; a presentation thread management engine coupled to the orientation-sensitive context switching subsystem, the presentation display subsystem, the presentation navigation subsystem, and the presentation state datastore; wherein, in operation: the orientation-sensitive context switching subsystem detects a first discrete orientation measured by the orientation-sensitive context switching device; the presentation display subsystem displays presentation content associated with the first discrete orientation on a presentation display device; the presentation navigation subsystem navigates from a first navigation location to a second navigation location of the presentation content using input from a presentation navigation device; the presentation thread management engine freezes a state associated with the presentation content and the first discrete orientation in the presentation state datastore when the orientation-sensitive context switching subsystem detects a second discrete orientation of the orientation-sensitive context switching device; the presentation navigation subsystem navigates to a third navigation location corresponding to second presentation content in response to the orientation- sensitive context switching device switching to the second discrete orientation using a navigation map, the navigation map including rules for translating stimuli of 2 Appeal 2017-008229 Application 14/094,638 discrete orientations of the context-sensitive device into navigation commands for navigating through content, including a navigation command to output the second presentation content when orientation of the orientation- sensitive context-switching device changes to the second discrete orientation. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Davenport US 5,101,364 Mar. 31, 1992 Kim US 2010/0066666 A1 Mar. 18,2010 Sankar US 2010/0169776 A1 July 1, 2010 Cumming US 2010/0222046 A1 Sept. 2, 2010 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1—4 and 10-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Davenport and Sankar. Final Act. 11—25. Claims 5—9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Davenport, Sankar, and Cumming. Final Act. 26-32. 2 In addition to the following rejections, the Examiner also rejected claims 1 and 4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing to comply with the written description requirement and under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as failing to set forth the subject matter which the joint inventors regard as their invention. Final Act. 6—7. Those rejections were withdrawn following an amendment to the claims. See Adv. Act. 2. 3 Appeal 2017-008229 Application 14/094,638 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.3 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 1—20, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 11—32), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 31—115). We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Kim, Davenport and Sankar teaches the limitations recited in claim 1. Br. 8—15. Specifically, Appellant argues Kim “simply teach[es] automatically changing the order of the slideshow to a reverse order of a preset order.” Id. at 10. Therefore, according to Appellant, “the Examiner has not identified in Kim, a navigation map,” the presentation thread management engine, or the presentation navigation subsystem as recited in claim 1. Id. at 10-13. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art 3 Rather than reiterate the entirety of the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 2, 2016); the Final Office Action (mailed June 2, 2016); the Advisory Action (mailed August 25, 2016); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 13, 2017) for the respective details. 4 Appeal 2017-008229 Application 14/094,638 disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellant’s arguments are based on arguing Kim individually and not the combined teaching of the references, we are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred. For example, although Appellant argues Kim does not teach a navigation map, the Examiner finds Sankar—not Kim—teaches that limitation. Compare Br. 10, with Final Act. 15. Similarly, the Examiner relies on a combination of the teachings of the references of Kim, Davenport and Sankar for the presentation display subsystem and the presentation navigation subsystem recited in the claims. Therefore, arguing Kim alone does not teach those limitations is not persuasive. Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in finding “Davenport teaches ‘a presentation navigation subsystem navigates from a first navigation location to a second navigation location of presentation content using input (Davenport: see FIG. 1; [3:56—68, 4:1—3]).’” Br. 13 (quoting Final Act. 13). As quoted by Appellant, “[t]he cited portions of Davenport recite ‘a displayed video segment or portion thereof is accompanied by simultaneous on-screen presentation of a set of micons that has been chosen by the user or the author of the video segment.’” Id. (quoting Davenport 3:56-60). According to Appellant, “[i]n teaching selecting content to 5 Appeal 2017-008229 Application 14/094,638 present based on a use’s selection of ‘micons’, the Examiner has not identified where Davenport teaches the deficiencies of Kim.” Id. Similar to the argument discussed above, Appellant’s argument is directed to Davenport alone and not the combination of teachings of Kim, Davenport, and Sankar relied on by the Examiner. That is, as the Examiner explicitly stated in the Answer, that disputed limitation is taught “by a combination of Kim, Davenport, Sankar and/or discussed rationale rather than by Kim or Davenport alone, as discussed above (6/2/2016 Final Office Action, pp. 11-16; 8/25/2016 Advisory Action, Continuation Sheet).” Ans. 41-42. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred. Third, Appellant argues that “[t]he cited portion of Sankar does not relate to changing content according to device orientation. Therefore, the Examiner has not indicated where Sankar cures the deficiencies of Kim.” Br. 15. Again, because Appellant is arguing the references separately, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred. Specifically, the Examiner relies on a combination of Kim and Sanker—not Sankar alone—for teaching changing according to device orientation. See Ans. 47-48; see also Final Act. 11—12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 11 and 16, which are argued on substantially the same grounds (compare Br. 8—15, with id. at 15—22), and dependent claims 2-4, 10, 12—15, and 17—20, which are not separately argued. With respect to dependent claims 5—9, Appellant merely contends that because the additional reference used in the rejections of these claims 6 Appeal 2017-008229 Application 14/094,638 (Cummings) does not cure the shortcomings of the other references applied against claim 1, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 23—25. Because we determine that the rejection of claim 1 is not erroneous for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—20. 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). See 37 C.F.R. §41.50(f). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation