Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13705785 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
5004-1-436 9323
EXAMINER
ELL, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/705,785
33942 7590
Cha & Reiter, LLC
17 Arcadian Avenue
Suite 208
Paramus, NJ 07652
12/05/2012 Jinyong KIM
03/01/2017 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 JINYONG KIM, MINKOO KANG, JIHYUN AHN, CHANGMO
YANG, EUNHYE LEE, and JINYOUNG JEON
Appeal 2016-008231
Application 13/705,7851
Technology Center 2100
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, LARRY J. HUME, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—8 and 10—17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The disclosed invention relates generally to performing tasks on a
mobile terminal. Spec 1. Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Industrial
Electronics Co., Ltd. (Appeal Brief, filed February 3, 2016 (“App. Br.”) 3).
Appeal 2016-008231
Application 13/705,785
1. A method comprising:
generating, by an electronic device, a map having an
application axis and a task history axis, the map including a
plurality of task history items, wherein each task history item
indicates a past execution state of a respective application, and
wherein each task history item is arranged on the map at a
location that is associated with: (i) a first position along the
application axis that corresponds to that task history item’s
respective application and (ii) a second position along the task
history axis that corresponds to that task history item;
displaying a screen based on the map that identifies one
or more of the plurality of task history items.
The Examiner rejects claims 1—8 and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Choudhary et al. (US 2013/0139113 Al, published
May 30, 2013, “Choudhary”).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—8 and 10—17?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites generating a map. The Examiner finds that
Choudhary discloses this feature. Final Act. 4 (citing Choudhary 13, 49, 50,
32, Figs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7). Appellants argue that Choudhary fails to disclose
generating a map, as recited in claim 1, because the claimed “map” “is an
entity that is not displayed to the user.” App. Br. 8 (citing Choudhary Figs.
6—7, Spec. 12:12 — 13:1). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument
for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 3. For example,
claim 1 recites a “map” but does not also recite that the “map” is “not
displayed to the user.”
Claim 1 recites an application axis and a task history axis. The
Examiner finds that Choudhary discloses this feature. Final Act. 4 (citing
2
Appeal 2016-008231
Application 13/705,785
Choudhary 13, 49, 50, 32, Figs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7). Appellants argue that
Choudhary fails to disclose “an application axis and a task history axis.'”
App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for at least the
reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 5. Appellants do not demonstrate
persuasively a substantive difference between the display of a two-
dimensional display of application “actions” (or “task history items”) of
Choudhary and the display of an “application axis” and “task history axis,”
as recited in claim 1. In both cases, a two-dimensional display of data (with
at least a horizontal axis and a vertical axis) is provided.
Claim 1 recites that a task history item indicates a past execution state
of a respective application. The Examiner finds that Choudhary discloses
this feature. Final Act. 4 (citing Choudhary 13, 49, 50, 32, Figs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7).
Appellants argue that Choudhary fails to disclose items that “represent a past
execution state of a given application” or an “Action” that “is performed in
the past by any of applications App 2, App 4, and App 5.” App. Br. 9. We
are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for at least the reasons set forth
by the Examiner. Ans. 5—6. Appellants do not explain persuasively a
meaningful difference between the “recorded actions” performed by a user
of an application (see, e.g., Choudhary 53) and a “past execution state” of an
application, as recited in claim 1. In both cases, a state of execution (i.e.,
prior actions of Choudhary are “recorded”) of an application is provided.
Claim 1 recites a plurality of task history items. The Examiner finds
that Choudhary discloses this feature. Final Act. 4 (citing Choudhary 13, 49,
50, 32, Figs 1,3,4, 6, 7). Appellants argue Choudhary discloses “only one
‘Action’” but that “the ‘Action’ is only one and it is not a task history item.”
App. Br. 9. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for at least the
reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 6. For example, Appellants do not
3
Appeal 2016-008231
Application 13/705,785
explain persuasively a meaningful difference between the “list of N actions”
(Choudhary 155) and a plurality of task history items, as recited in claim 1.
In both cases, multiple items are provided.
Claim 5 recites that the screen includes only a portion of the map.
The Examiner finds Choudhary discloses this feature. Final Act. 8 (citing
Choudhary H 50-52, Fig. 6). Appellants argue Choudhary fails to disclose
displays that “includes ‘only a portion ’ of the screen.” App. Br. 10. We are
not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for at least the reasons set forth by
the Examiner. Ans. 7. Claim 5 recites a screen includes only a portion of
the map. Claim 5 does not also recite a display that includes only a portion
of the screen, as Appellants argue.
To the extent Appellants argue Choudhary fails to disclose displaying
less than an entire map, we note claim 5 recites a screen that includes only a
portion of the map but does not also recite that the portion of the map
included in the screen must be less than the entire map. In any event, we
also note Choudhary discloses one example, in which “Action 2 has been
removed from the list of actions.” Choudhary | 56. In other words,
Choudhary discloses a screen includes only a portion of the map, the
“portion,” not including “Action 2,” and, therefore, less than the entire list of
actions. Therefore, even assuming claim 5 recites a screen that includes a
portion of a map, the portion being less than the entire map (claim 5 does not
recite this requirement, however), we still are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument.
Claim 7 recites a screen being navigable. The Examiner finds
Choudhary discloses this feature. Final Act. 5 (citing Choudhary || 54, 55,
Fig. 7). Appellants argue “Choudhary makes no mention of the display . . .
4
Appeal 2016-008231
Application 13/705,785
being navigable.” App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 8.
Claim 7 recites identifying an item in a screen based on relative
positions of items in a two-dimensional arrangement. The Examiner finds
Choudhary discloses this feature. Final Act. 5 (citing Choudhary || 13, 49,
55—57, Fig. 7). Appellants argue Choudhary fails to disclose this feature.
App. Br. 12. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for at least the
reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 8—9.
Appellants do not provide additional substantive arguments in support
of claims 2-4, 6, 8, and 10-17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—8 and 10—17.
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
5