Ex Parte Hoyer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13651200 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/651,200 10/12/2012
50400 7590 09/28/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Timo Hoyer
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.
2058.727US 1 1076
EXAMINER
AYAD,MARIAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMO HOYER
Appeal2015-007368
Application 13/651,200
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
twice rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-20, all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention "relates generally to the management of data
and, more specifically, to displaying content to one or more users" (Spec.
iT 1 ).
Appeal2015-007368
Application 13/651,200
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
identifying a content item capable of being displayed to a user;
identifying a graphical object having a first side containing first
information and an opposite second side containing second
information, the graphical object being rotatable between displaying
the first side and displaying the second side responsive to a user
activation of the graphical object;
associating, using one or more processors, the graphical object
with the content item;
selecting a visual indicator that identifies the association
between the graphical object and the content item;
associating the visual indicator with the content item and the
graphical object; and
generating a content package including the content item, the
graphical object, the visual indicator, instructions for interacting with
the graphical object, and a definition of the association between the
graphical object and the content item.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pomplun (US 2010/0042494 Al,
Feb. 18, 2010), Horvitz et al. (US 2008/0155576 Al, June 26, 2008), and
Swineford et al. (US 2009/0292980 Al, Nov. 26, 2009).
R2. Claims 3-5, 12, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pomplun, Horvitz, Swineford,
and Lee (US 2012/0084704 Al, Apr. 5, 2012).
R3. Claims 8, 14, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pomplun, Horvitz, Swineford, and
Waller (US 2013/0047112 Al, Feb. 21, 2013).
2
Appeal2015-007368
Application 13/651,200
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under§ 103(a) over Pomplun, Horvitz, and Swineford
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of Pomplun, Horvitz, and Swineford teach or suggest "selecting a visual
indicator that identifies the association between the graphical object and the
content item" and "generating a content package," as recited in claim 1?
Appellant contends Swineford does not teach a content package that
includes "the visual indicator," where the visual indicator "identifies the
association between the graphical object and the content item" (App. Br.
11).
Appellant's argument against Swineford separately from Pomplun
does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where
the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Pomplun
teaches selecting a visual indicator that identifies the association between the
graphical object and the content item (Ans. 3); and that Swineford teaches
generating a content package including the claimed elements (Ans. 3--4); and
that it would be obvious to modify Pomplun's selecting a visual indicator
3
Appeal2015-007368
Application 13/651,200
with Swineford's generating a content package including that visual
indicator (see Ans. 5).
For example, Pomplun discloses:
In the entry 315 found in FIG. 3, the type of content is the title of
the story, which is "Blue-ray titles to get you started." The title
of the story may include an identifier of whether the
advertisement is associated with the story. The identifier
showing whether the advertisement is associated with the story
may be shown in any number of ways, such as a link, a word, a
symbol (e.g., an asterisk), a visual indicator, and the like.
(Pomplun i-f 23, emphases added). Swineford discloses:
Some further options may include one or more optional elements
524 from the storage device 620 which may be selected for
inclusion in a package file or which may already be included or
referenced in a selected presentation specification 522. Such
optional elements 524 may include one or more navigation aids
that provide navigation functionality within a displayed
presentation specification. In some embodiments, the optional
elements may include another instance of a media playing
application or plug-in which may be configured to play an audio
track, display a video, animation, a series of still images, or other
media types when displayed. As with the presentation
specifications 522, the functionality of the optional elements 524
is generally limited only by the imagination of an optional
element developer or package file author.
(Swineford i-f 67, emphases added).
In other words, Pomplun describes a visual indicator identifying an
association between a graphical object and content item; and Swineford
describes a content package for a presentation specification including a
variety of optional elements such as visual elements.
Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
combination of Pomplun and Swineford (and Horvitz) does not teach
"selecting a visual indicator that identifies the association between the
4
Appeal2015-007368
Application 13/651,200
graphical object and the content item" and "generating a content package
including ... the visual indicator." Thus, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that Pomplun's identifier teaches the claimed visual indicator, as
required by claim 1; and Swineford's package file and presentation
specification teaches the claimed content package including the visual
indicator, as required by claim 1.
Appellant further contends Swineford's executable instructions do not
teach or suggest the claimed "instructions for interacting with the graphical
object" included in the claimed "content package" (App. Br. 13).
Specifically, Appellant argues the claimed "instructions for interacting with
the graphical object" are defined as "a text label, that instructs a user how to
interact with the graphical object 404" (Id., citing Spec. i-f 30).
However, claim 1 does not recite any such definition of the claimed
instructions. Rather, the claim recites "instructions for interacting with the
graphical object." The Examiner finds the scope of this limitation, when
read in light of Paragraph 30 of Appellant's Specification, which discloses a
non-limiting example of instructions, encompasses Swineford's executable
instructions included in the presentation specification (Ans. 6, citing
Swineford i-f 60). We agree with the Examiner. Appellant's contention is
not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
For example, Swineford discloses:
In some embodiments, the presentation specification also
includes instructions executable within an environment of the
page description language reader application, or other
application depending on the file type of the package file, to
cause the presentation specification to be instantiated and
displayed within a graphical user interface of the application. In
some embodiments, the instructions may also be executable to
modifY an appearance of the displayed presentation specification
5
Appeal2015-007368
Application 13/651,200
in response to one or more events, such as a user clicking a
mouse on a display element, a hover event of a mouse over a
displayed element, or other event.
(Swineford i-f 60, emphases added). In other words, Swineford teaches
executable instructions for the presentation specification that lead to
instantiation and display modification based on a user interacting with visual
elements in the presentation specification.
Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
combination of Pomplun and Swineford (and Horvitz) does not teach
instructions for interacting with a graphical object. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Swineford's presentation specification including
executable instructions teaches "a content package including ... instructions
for interacting with the graphical object," as recited in claim 1.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection RI, of
independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of commensurate independent
claim 13, not separately argued (App. Br. 14, 16), as well as dependent
claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 15, not separately argued (App. Br. 10), is
sustained.
Rejection under§ 103(a) over Pomplun, Horvitz, Swineford, and Lee
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of Pomplun, Horvitz, Swineford, and Lee teach or suggest "the visual
indicator visually simulates an attachment of the graphical object to the
content item," as recited in claim 5?
Appellant contends Lee's graphical paper clip "is used to indicate that
a page is bookmarked" and does not "indicate 'an association' of the memo
6
Appeal2015-007368
Application 13/651,200
popup window and the bookmarked page" or an attachment or visual
association between the content item and the graphical object (App. Br. 16).
Here, Appellant's argument against Lee separately from Pomplun and
Swineford does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the
Examiner. See In re Merck at 1097; see also In re Keller at 425.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Lee's paper clip shows an
attachment or association between a graphical object and a content item,
while Pomplun teaches associating a visual indicator with a content item and
graphical object.
For example, Lee discloses:
if a touch event is detected in the upper UI active area 602 of the
e-book and a downward drag is detected, then the terminal
determines that the bookmark needs to be added and generates
a paper clip icon corresponding to the bookmark to be added.
(Lee i-f 66, emphasis added). In other words, while Pomplun describes a
visual indicator identifying an association between a graphical object and
content item, Lee describes a paper clip visual indicator that shows the
association and attachment between various content elements.
Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
combination of Pomplun and Lee (and Horvitz and Swineford) does not
teach the visual association and attachment for a visual indicator with a
content item and a graphical object. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that Pomplun's association identifier for content and graphical object
teaches the visual indicator, content item, and graphical object, as required
by claim 5; and Lee's graphical paper clip teaches "the visual indicator
visually simulates an attachment of the graphical object to the content item,"
as recited in claim 5 (emphases added).
7
Appeal2015-007368
Application 13/651,200
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection R2, of dependent
claim 5, as well as the rejection of commensurate dependent claim 12 (see
App. Br. 16), as well as dependent claims 3, 4, and 17-19, not separately
argued (App. Br. 16), is sustained.
Rejection under§ 103(a) over Pomplun, Horvitz, Swineford, and Waller
Appellant has provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for claims 8, 14, 16, and 20 (App. Br. 10, 16). Therefore, the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection R3 of claims 8, 14, 16, and 20 is sustained for
similar reasons as noted supra.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections Rl-R3.
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
8