Ex Parte Logan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

12393515 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

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.
12/393,515 02/26/2009 Adrian Logan 29717-0693001 1890
93377 7590 12/19/2016
RlarVRp.rrv T imiteH fFinneaan^
EXAMINER
2200 University Avenue East
Waterloo, ON N2K 0A7
PARKER, JEANETTE J
CANADA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
portfolioprosecution@blackberry.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADRIAN LOGAN, ROHIT JAIN, and ERIC FRITZLEY
Appeal 2015-002819
Application 12/393,515
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—21 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a computer-implemented method of
altering an interface in which the interface is associated with an application
having a time-dependent displayed event. Specification [0030].
Appeal 2015-002819
Application 12/393,515
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method of altering an interface, said method comprising:
displaying, on a mobile communications device, an interface
associated with an application having time-dependent events, said interface
displaying at least one activatable component, wherein said interface
includes a menu comprising the at least one activatable component and said
interface is installed on the mobile communications device and wherein the
application operates on the mobile communications device; and
at a pre-set time relative to a time for one of said time-dependent
events, altering said interface to add an additional activatable component to
said menu thereby increasing the size of said menu or to set a pre­
determined one of said at least one activatable component of said
interface as a selected component, wherein the additional activatable
component is added based on the one of the time-dependent events in the
application on the mobile communications device.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vander Veen (US Patent Application Publication Number
2007/0070940 Al; published March 29, 2007) and Xiao (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2010/0005142 Al; published January 7,
2010). Final Rejection 3—28.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 30, 2014), the Reply Brief
(filed January 13, 2015), the Answer (mailed November 20, 2014) and the
Final Rejection (mailed January 30, 2014) for the respective details. We
have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs.
2
Appeal 2015-002819
Application 12/393,515
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellants contend, according to the Final Rejection, Vander Veen
dialog box 100a (shown in Figure 13) discloses the claimed interface having
an application with time dependent events and buttons. Appeal Brief 11.
Appellants further contend the alleged buttons shown in Figure 13 cannot
correspond to the claimed “menu comprising the at least one activatable
component” because the “Office never shows how Vander Veen’s dialog box
100a is altered.” Appeal Brief 11. Appellants argue that Vander Veen only
shows that the dialog box is generated, not altered. Appeal Brief 11.
The Examiner finds Vender Veen discloses an interface displaying
activatable components and further finds:
Vander Veen teaches that an activatable component such as the
call option can be removed after the scheduled event time (0062:
“if the scheduled conference call time has already passed, the
user is simply presented with a notice that the call time has
passed, and is not given the option to join the call”).
Final Rejection 5.
The Examiner further finds that:
Xiao teaches altering interface by adding an added activatable
component to said menu prior to the scheduled conference event
thereby increasing the size of said menu (0056: for a ‘join
meeting’ web page, a ‘join meeting’ option 620 may be present
if the meeting has started or is about to start (e.g., within thirty
minutes of the meeting starting) ... If unable to join before the
host, attendees may be shown an inactive (e.g., ‘grayed out’) join
3
Appeal 2015-002819
Application 12/393,515
meeting option 620 (as shown), or the option may not be present)
..., if an option is added to a menu then inherently the size of the
menu has increased).
Final Rejection 5—6. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ argument
persuasive because it is evident that both Vander Veen and Xiao disclose
alterable interfaces in the same manner as claimed.
Appellants argue that Xiao fails to disclose altering the interface as
claimed because Xiao’s alleged interface “is only altered at a web server”
and “Xiao s web page is not an installed component that can be altered at the
mobile device.” Appeal Brief 12—13. We do not find Appellants’ argument
persuasive because it has not been demonstrated that the software used to
generate the interface of Vander Veen and Xiao is limited to either
environment — web server or mobile client. Further, Appellants’ arguments
are conclusory because it is well known that web pages can be displayed, as
well as altered, on mobile devices such as the one disclosed in Vander Veen.
See Vander Veen, paragraph 29.
Appellants also argue that Vander Veen and Xiao are incompatible
with each other:
[Tjhere is also no motivation to add a further button to the dialog
box 100a of Vander Veen to include the “join meeting” option
620 of Xiao. This is because dialog box 100a of Vander Veen
already provides the call button 110a to allow a [user] to join a
conference; thus there would be no need to also include the “join
meeting” option 620 of Xiao. Given that Vander Veen’s call
button 110a (of dialog box 100a) provides similar behavior and
functionality as the “join meeting” option 620 of Xiao, a person
with ordinary skill in the art will not be motivated to add the join
meeting option.
Appeal Brief 13.
4
Appeal 2015-002819
Application 12/393,515
The Examiner finds:
[I]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the
time of the invention was made to utilize the adding join meeting
activatable option method of Xiao in the conferencing call
scheduler and manager of Vander Veen because Xiao teaches a
method that improves usability of the interface by dynamically
notifying user of the immediate joining meeting status
[paragraph] (0056).
Final Rejection 7.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive because:
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Further, we agree with the Examiner’s motivation to combine Vander
Veen and Xiao because the Examiner supported the legal conclusion of
obviousness by showing articulated reasoning with rational underpinning.1
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
1, as well as claims 2—21, not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 16—17.
1 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner
can satisfy this test by showing some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citingIn re Kahn, 441
F.3d at 988).
5
Appeal 2015-002819
Application 12/393,515
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—21 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6