Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2014

11840798 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

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.
11/840,798 08/17/2007 Hee-Young Lee 1235-394 1949
66547 7590 06/30/2014
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
TOPGYAL, GELEK W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2014 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 HEE-YOUNG LEE, CHUL-HWAN LEE,
JIN-WOO JUNG, and HYUN-YOUNG MO
____________

Appeal 2012-0011670
Application 11/840,798
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-011670
Application 11/840,798

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a portable terminal
capable of playing media files, and in particular, to an apparatus and method
for controlling a media player running on a background. (Spec. 1:14-16).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. An apparatus for controlling a media player running on a
background in a portable terminal, comprising:
an input unit including a key for controlling the media
player;
a media management unit for controlling an operation of
the media player running on the background; and
a control unit for controlling the media management unit
to control the operation of the media player when the control
unit detects an input of the key for controlling the media player
and for determining whether the detected key input is a key
input for controlling the media player or a key input for
performing an inherent operation of the key according to a key
input method.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Johnson (US 7,865,366 B2; Jan. 4, 2011) (Ans. 4-7).
The Examiner rejected claims 7-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Johnson in view of Niemi (US 5,819,175; Oct. 6,
1998) (Ans. 7-11).

Appeal 2012-011670
Application 11/840,798

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding Johnson teaches all
Appellants’ claimed limitations (App. Br. 4; Ans. 4-6). Specifically,
Appellants contend Johnson only discloses a media player function is
performed—no determination is made between media functions and inherent
functions (App. Br. 5). Thus, Johnson does not disclose a control unit
determining whether a detected key input controls a media player or
performs an inherent operation as claimed. Additionally, Appellants
contend Johnson does not teach a media management unit for controlling the
media player running on the background, as claimed (App. Br. 5-6).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s conclusions that the subject matter of
Appellants’ claims 1-6 are anticipated by Johnson. For emphasis only, we
provide the following.
The Examiner finds Johnson discloses the control unit for controlling
a media player and determining whether a detected key input is a key input
for controlling the media player or for performing an inherent operation of
the key (Ans. 4-6; 11-12). That is, the claim language does not require both
instances be compared prior to determining one or the other input has
occurred (Ans. 12). Rather, the claim merely requires the control unit
determine whether the detected key controls the media player or the control
unit determines whether the detected key performs an inherent operation.
We agree with the Examiner that Johnson’s column 17, lines 41-46 discloses
these features by teaching when a phone number from a metadata tag
Appeal 2012-011670
Application 11/840,798

4
associated with the current media file is dialed (detected key input), the
primary media output is interrupted (controlling the media player) while the
call is made and resumes once the call is completed. This also supports the
Examiner’s finding that the media player is therefore running in the
background and that the control key controls the media player. That is, we
agree with the Examiner that:
Since the media player is in a paused/interrupted state, there is
no output through the device, however, the media player is
waiting in the background to resume output once the call is
completed. Similarly, when the media player is running, the
ability to receive/make calls suggests that in a typical CPU
oriented system, being able to process multiple processes at a
same time suggests that both programs are running in the
background to handle multitasking.

(Ans.12-13).
Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-6 dependent therefrom and not separately
argued.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to claims 7-15, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
each of these claims for the above reasons and those set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 4-10; 13-14). Specifically, we agree with the Examiner finding
Neimi’s ability to scroll through a menu of available functions, discloses
“displaying a key setup screen” as claimed (Ans. 13). Additionally, Niemi
selects a menu option to allow a user to assign a particular function to a key
(Ans. 13-14).
Appeal 2012-011670
Application 11/840,798

5
Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 7 and 15, and claims 8-14, dependent therefrom and not separately
argues.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C
§ 102(e) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7-15 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kme