Ex Parte Maxwell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2016

13109961 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/109,961 05/17/2011
26183 7590 07/28/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (APPLE)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cynthia Maxwell
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.
18962-0407001/Pl0725US1 2501
EXAMINER
DUCKWORTH, JIANMEI F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CYNTHIA MAXWELL
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention adjusts a set of applications or icons on a user
interface based on detected ambient light or noise. In one aspect, displayed
objects can be assigned a certain priority and promoted or demoted to
associated screens based on detected light or noise. See generally Abstract;
Spec. i-fi-123-32; Fig. 2. Claim 1 is illustrative:
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
1. A method comprising:
displaying a plurality of first graphical objects at a respective plurality
of first positions on a user interface of a device, wherein the plurality of first
graphical objects correspond to a respective plurality of first applications
executable by the device, wherein each first application is associated with a
first priority level;
detecting an amount of ambient light at the device;
in response to detecting the amount of ambient light:
identifying a first application that is affected by the ambient light
when the first application is executed by the device;
changing a priority level of the identified first application from the
first priority level to a second priority level that is different from the first
priority level; and
adjusting a position of a first graphical object that corresponds to the
identified first application from a corresponding first position on the user
interface to a second position for displaying applications, each associated
with a respective second priority level that is different from the first priority
level.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 19, and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ek (US 2009/0128530 Al; May 21, 2009) and
Wagner (US 2004/0155909 Al; Aug. 12, 2004). Ans. 2-9. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 10-18, 20, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ek, Wagner, and Sullivan (US 2009/0249429
Al; Oct. 1, 2009). Ans. 9-19.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 23,
2014 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed November 7, 2014
("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed January 7, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
THE REJECTION OVER EK AND WAGNER
The Examiner finds that Ek displays first graphical objects
corresponding to respective first applications in display 14 in Figure 1,
where each application is associated with a first priority level. Ans. 2. The
Examiner also finds that, responsive to the amount of ambient light detected
via detecting unit 18, Ek identifies a first application that is affected by
ambient light when the device executes the first application, namely by
identifying the affected application before icons are rearranged or enlarged.
Ans. 2-3. According to the Examiner, Ek's adding or removing icons to and
from the display under certain ambient light conditions adjusts the first
graphical object's position from a first position to a second position. Ans. 3.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Ek does not explicitly
teach changing the first application's priority level from a first to a second
priority level and adjusting the first graphical object's position accordingly,
the Examiner cites Wagner for teaching this feature in concluding that the
claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3--4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly equates the
"functions" that are displayed with icons and prompts in Ek's paragraph 32
with functions that are performed, namely the underlying applications that
are executed. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 1--4. According to Appellant, these
"functions" merely refer to information displayed on a screen, and not to
actions performed responsive to selecting an associated icon. App. Br. 9.
As such, Appellant contends, Ek's changing positions of displayed
functions, icons, or prompts is based solely on the effect of ambient light on
the appearance of those displayed elements-not the light's effect on the
functions performed by the underlying applications. App. Br. 9-12; Reply
3
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
Br. 4--5. Rather, other factors, such as use frequency, time, position, and
temperature, are said to affect these underlying functions. App. Br. 12-15.
Appellant adds that Ek does not associate each first application with a
first priority level, nor does Wagner change an application's priority level,
let alone adjust a graphical object's position to a second associated position
as claimed. App. Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 6-9. According to Appellant, the
Examiner improperly conflates the last two clauses of claim 1 by citing the
same portions of Wagner to teach those features. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br.
6-9. Lastly, Appellant contends that because Ek already describes actions to
be performed under high ambient light conditions, modifying Ek to
incorporate Wagner would amount to extra work for no apparent reason and,
therefore, skilled artisans would have been motivated against the proposed
modification. App. Br. 17-18. Appellant argues other recited limitations
summarized below.
ISSUES
I. Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Ek and
Wagner collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) (a) associating each first application with a first priority level, and
responsive to detecting the amount of ambient light; (b) identifying a first
application that is affected by the light when the application is executed; ( c)
changing a priority level of the identified first application to a second,
different priority level; and ( d) adjusting an associated first graphical
object's position from a first to a second position associated with the second
priority level as recited in claim 1?
4
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
(2) storing metadata for each application, where the metadata
identifies an ambient light threshold value, and adjusting the position of the
first graphical object based on the stored metadata as recited in claim 7?
II. Is the Examiner's proposed combination supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's
obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 19, and 21-25
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, plural graphical objects that
correspond to respective plural first applications executable by a device,
where each first application is associated with a first priority level. The
claim also recites, in response to detecting an amount of ambient light,
identifying a first application that is affected by ambient light when the first
application is executed.
Our emphasis underscores that the claim requires that ambient light
affects the executed application-not the corresponding graphical objects.
Although nothing in the claim precludes both the executed application and
the corresponding graphical objects to be affected by ambient light given the
preamble's open-ended "comprising" language,2 the claim nevertheless
requires at least the executed application to be so affected.
2 "'Comprising' is a term of art used in claim language which means that the
named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still
form a construct within the scope of the claim." Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron
Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
5
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
This recited effect of ambient light on the executed application forms
a key aspect of this dispute. Although it is undisputed that Ek' s system is
based on ambient light's effect on displayed images, such as icons, which
correspond to executable applications, the Examiner and Appellant disagree
on whether ambient light affects the applications themselves. App. Br. 9-
12; Reply Br. 1-5.
In the rejection, the Examiner finds that the rectangular icons in Ek's
display 14 in Figure 1 are for functions associated with playing music,
games, and surfing the internet. Ans. 2 (citing Ek i-f 33). Ek's paragraph 33
adds other functions associated with these icons, including making and
receiving phone calls, sending and receiving text or electronic mail
messages, taking pictures, etc. These functions, then, reasonably correspond
to the recited first executable applications.
A key aspect of Ek's system is that it improves readability of
displayed information during high ambient light conditions when, for
example, the device is used outdoors on sunny days. Ek i-fi-136, 40. To this
end, luminance values are changed between neighboring image fields on the
device depending on luminance values of detected ambient light. Ek i-f 3 8,
Fig. 3.
Based on this functionality, Ek at least suggests that not only are the
icons that represent the underlying application affected by ambient light, but
any displayed information-including information resulting from executable
applications-would be so affected. That is, we see no reason why the
user's difficulties in seeing an image's grey-scale nuances and colors under
high ambient light conditions noted by Ek' s paragraph 3 6 would not also
apply to information displayed resulting from executing an icon's underlying
6
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
application under those conditions, particularly given the display-intensive
functions such as gaming, internet browsing, and text messaging noted in
Ek's paragraph 33. In that sense, then, the applications would be affected by
ambient light when executed, at least with respect to the readability of their
associated data. That claim 1 does not specify how, or to what extent,
ambient light affects the first application when it is executed only further
underscores the breadth of this limitation.
Nevertheless, even assuming, without deciding, that Ek' s system is
based solely on the effect of ambient light on displayed images (e.g., icons)
themselves as Appellant contends, we see no error in the Examiner's
position that Ek at least suggests that underlying applications would be
affected by ambient light when executed. Ans. 23-25 (citing Ek i-f 42). In
this regard, the Examiner finds that a high ambient light condition can create
a "negative" effect on how a user reacts to the data, namely with respect to
user habits and frequency of use. Id.
This position has at least a rational basis on this record that has not
been persuasively rebutted. In paragraph 42, Ek explains that when a high
ambient light condition exists, displayed images can be changed, for
example, by removing, adding, or enlarging icons. For example, a displayed
clock may be enlarged under high ambient light conditions. Ek i-f 42.
Notably, such a change may be based on user habits, where icons or other
data relating to functions may be retained or removed depending on use
frequency. Id.
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's position that a user's
habits and the frequency of use of certain applications, particularly display-
intensive functions such as gaming, internet browsing, and text messaging
7
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
noted in Ek's paragraph 33, could be negatively impacted by a high ambient
light condition. See Ans. 23, 25. Although Ek does not state explicitly that
a high ambient light condition affects user habits and frequency of use, the
fact that such conditions degrade readability and make it more difficult for
the user to see the displayed information's details and nuances could
negatively impact a user's habits regarding associated applications and their
frequency of use. For example, a user may be less likely to view displayed
information that is more difficult to see, for example, under high ambient
light conditions.
Although Ek does not explicitly tie a user's habits regarding executed
applications to particular ambient light conditions as Appellant contends
(Reply Br. 4---6), user habits and use frequency can nevertheless be tied to
detected ambient light under at least some scenarios. That these habits are
discussed in paragraph 42-a paragraph replete with references to high
ambient light conditions---only bolsters the Examiner's position that user
habits and use frequency can be related to those conditions given the
paragraph's overall context. Accord Ans. 24 (interpreting Ek's function
usage data in paragraph 42 in the context of high ambient light conditions).
The Examiner's position, then, has at least a rational basis that has not been
persuasively rebutted. Ans. 23-25.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner's position that Ek associates
each first application with a "first priority level." Ans. 2, 31. As the
Examiner indicates, Appellant does not define the term "first priority level,"
and, therefore, the Examiner construes the term with its plain meaning as
conveying the meaning of a value or hierarchy. Ans. 31. By displaying the
applications' associated icons in display 14 in Ek's Figure 1, this display at
8
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
least suggests that those applications would have a higher priority than those
associated with icons that are not on the screen (e.g., those that have been
removed as noted in paragraph 42). Ans. 2, 31. Although Ek does not
explicitly mention a priority level as Appellant indicates (App. Br. 16),
nothing in the claim precludes the Examiner's interpretation based on Ek's
selective display of application-based icons. That Ek prioritizes ergonomics
when readability is low, namely under high ambient light conditions, by,
among other things, removing icons under such conditions (see Ek i-fi-1 40,
42), only bolsters the Examiner's position that Ek associates each first
application whose icon is displayed with a first priority level. Accord Ans.
31 (noting this prioritization).
We also see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Wagner for
teaching changing priority levels and adjusting a first graphical object's
position accordingly. The Examiner finds that Wagner's icons in primary
position 302 and secondary position 304 have a higher priority than those in
tertiary position 306. Ans. 3--4, 29-30 (citing Wagner i-fi-152-54; Fig. 3).
This position is reasonable, not only in light of Wagner's nomenclature
("primary," "secondary," and "tertiary") which suggests relative priorities,
but also Wagner's hiding tertiary-position icons in a tray, unlike the other
icons. See Wagner i153; see also id. i155 (noting that the user is less
interested in applications represented by icons in the secondary position as
compared to the primary position), i158 (noting that applications represented
by icons in the tertiary position are predicted to be used less often than those
in the primary and secondary positions).
Nor do we find error in the Examiner's position that promoting or
demoting icons from one area to another changes the associated
9
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
applications' priority levels. Ans. 3, 30, 32-33. Appellant's contention that
the Examiner allegedly conflated the last two clauses of claim 1 by relying
on the same sections of Wagner (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6-9) is
unavailing. First, the Examiner does not rely solely on Wagner for teaching
these two limitations as Appellant seems to suggest. Rather, the Examiner
cites (1) Wagner for teaching the recited priority level change, and (2) both
Wagner and Ek for teaching the recited graphical object position adjustment.
See Ans. 3--4. Appellant's arguments with respect to Wagner's
shortcomings regarding claim 1 's last two clauses, then, ignore the
Examiner's reliance on Ek in connection with the position adjustment
limitation.
Nevertheless, even if the Examiner's position regarding the last two
clauses of claim 1 was based solely on Wagner (which it is not), we are still
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner finds that
users can change icon importance in Wagner "via highlighting and
rearrangement." Ans. 3 (citing Wagner i-fi-f 14, 18). In these cited
paragraphs, Wagner explains that selecting a second icon in the tertiary tray
(1) displays the second icon in the main portion of the device, and (2)
removes a first icon from the main portion. Wagner i-f 18. In this process,
then, a priority level is changed by the user highlighting and selecting the
icons associated with the main and tertiary position which causes the device
to transpose their relative priorities, and then adjust the displayed position of
corresponding graphical objects accordingly.
That is, the process in Wagner's paragraph 18 involves the user
changing the applications' priority levels by selecting the associated icons to
be promoted or demoted to different priority levels, and executing this
10
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
functionality on the device. Upon this execution, the device then adjusts the
icons' positions graphically on the display. There are, therefore, two steps in
this process: (1) a priority level change triggered by the user's selecting
associated icons and executing the associated rearrangement function, and
(2) the device implementing this rearrangement function graphically on the
display. Given this multi-step process, Appellant's contention that the
Examiner allegedly conflated the last two clauses of claim 1 by relying on
the same sections of Wagner (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6-9) is unavailing.
Lastly, we find unpersuasive Appellant's contention that because Ek
already describes actions to be performed under high ambient light
conditions, modifying Ek to incorporate Wagner would allegedly amount to
extra work for no apparent reason and, therefore, skilled artisans would have
been motivated against the proposed modification. App. Br. 17-18. The
Examiner's articulated rationale to combine the references, namely to make
the disclosed user interface more intuitive and user-friendly (Ans. 4, 33-34),
is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. Such an enhancement uses
prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an
obvious improvement. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2---6, 8, 9, 19, and 21-25 not argued separately with
particularity.
11
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
Claim 7
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 reciting storing
metadata for each application, where the metadata identifies an ambient light
threshold value, and adjusting the position of the first graphical object based
on the stored metadata.
First, we see no error in the Examiner's broad, but reasonable,
construction of "metadata" in light of the Specification. Ans. 3 5-3 6 (citing
Spec. i-fi-134--35). As the Examiner indicates, the Specification does not
define this term and, under its plain meaning, the term simply means "[d]ata
about data." MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 336 (5th ed. 2002).
Based on this construction, the Examiner maps the recited metadata to
Ek's "circumstance data" that is stored in a "circumstance data provision
unit" before changing or rearranging icons under high ambient light
conditions. Ans. 6, 35-36. To be sure, Ek's "circumstance data provision
units" 22, 24, and 30 are not disclosed as storing ambient light threshold
values, but rather respectively constitute a clock, a temperature detecting
unit, and a positioning unit as Appellant indicates. App. Br. 18-19.
Nevertheless, skilled artisans would understand that the ambient light
threshold data used as a basis for comparison in the process of Ek's Figure 3
would be stored. On this record, we see no reason why storing this
"metadata" in a circumstance data provision unit as the Examiner proposes
would not have been an obvious variation, particularly in light of Ek's
explicit references to ambient light thresholds as being associated with
certain circumstances. See Ek i138 (noting that certain ambient light
thresholds can be used based on particular circumstances); see also id. i1 42
(noting that in most circumstances, ambient light thresholds should be
12
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
different). This threshold data is, therefore, "circumstance" data or metadata
at least in that sense.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7.
THE REJECTION OVER EK, WAGNER, AND SULLIVAN
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 10
reciting limitations identical to claim 1 except that ambient noise is recited
instead of ambient light.
Recognizing this distinction, the Examiner cites Sullivan for teaching
detecting an amount of ambient noise at a device, and identifying a first
application affected by the ambient noise when the application is executed
by a device. Ans. 12 (citing Sullivan i-fi-153, 56; Figs. 6-7). The Examiner
then concludes that claim 10 would have been obvious over the collective
teachings of Ek, Wagner, and Sullivan. Ans. 12-13, 37--42.
We see no error in this position. Although Appellant argues that
neither Ek nor Wagner detect ambient noise (App. Br. 19-22), those
references were not cited for that feature. Rather, as noted above, the
Examiner cites Sullivan for teaching detecting ambient noise. Ans. 12-13,
37--42. Appellant's arguments regarding Ek's and Wagner's individual
shortcomings regarding ambient noise detection, then, are unpersuasive for
they not only are inapposite to the Examiner's reliance on Sullivan, but they
do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the
cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F .2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
13
Appeal2015-002535
Application 13/109,961
Although Ek or Wagner are silent regarding ambient noise, we
nonetheless see no reason why ambient noise could not also be detected and
used in the manner claimed in the prior art system, particularly given
Sullivan's detecting either ambient light or sound to monitor environmental
changes in paragraph 53. Given these alternatives, the Examiner's proposed
modification to detect ambient noise in the Ek/Wagner system in light of
Sullivan has a rational basis, for such an enhancement uses prior art
elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 10, and claims 11-18, 20, and 26-30 not argued separately with
particularity. 3
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-30 under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-30 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
3 Although claim 16 was nominally argued separately (App. Br. 22),
Appellant reiterates arguments made with respect to claim 7 which we find
unpersuasive for the reasons previously discussed.
14