Ex Parte Metsatahti et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2011

10715162 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2011)

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.
10/715,162 11/17/2003 Vesa Metsatahti 042933/269514 4105
10949 7590 08/29/2011
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
SAEED, USMAAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte VESA METSATAHTI, LAURA HUHTELA-BREMER, TOMI
HAKARI, ANDREA FINKE-ANLAUFF, ANNIKA MACKE, TOMMI
BACKGREN, and OLOF SCHYBERGSON
____________________

Appeal 2009-012027
Application 10/715,162
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG,
and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012027
Application 10/715,162

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a media file storage and management
application for a digital device including a timeline view that is navigable by
the user for the purpose of locating media files; wherein, the timeline view
includes individual time units having a length that indicates the volume of
media files that exist on a specific date (Fig. 1; Spec. 8:28 - 9:1 and 16:1-
10).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer program product comprising a computer
readable storage medium having computer-readable program
instructions embodied in the medium, the computer-readable
program instructions comprising:

first instructions configured, when executed, to generate
a media view that provides access to digital media files and
associates digital media files with a predefined
time; and

second instructions configured, when executed, to
generate a time bar that divides time into segments of unit time,
each segment of unit time having a respective length along the
time bar that depends upon the amount of media files associated
with the respective segment of unit time.

Appeal 2009-012027
Application 10/715,162

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Parker US 2003/0009493 A1 Jan. 09, 2003
Rothmuller WO 02/057959 A2 Jul. 25, 2002

Claims 1-11 and 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rothmuller in view of Parker.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rothmuller.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Rothmuller and Parker teaches or would
have suggested “a time bar that divides time into segments of unit time, each
segment of unit time having a respective length along the time bar that
depends upon the amount of media files associated with the respective
segment of unit time” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Rothmuller
1. Rothmuller is directed to a method and apparatus for managing,
finding, and displaying objects such as digital images; wherein, database
Appeal 2009-012027
Application 10/715,162

4
object distributions can be displayed as histograms or scatter plots, including
timelines, calendars or maps (Abstract).
2. Objects can be tagged with metadata and searched for
according to the tagged search criteria; wherein, photos can be searched by
time and date (Figs. 1, 3, and 4; 2:13-19).
3. The timeline 250 includes a vertical bar graph with bar heights
that are representative of the number of photos taken during a given period
of time normalized to the average number of photos taken during all such
periods of time (Figs. 1 and 3; 8:28-31 and 7:29-31). The timeline 250
includes adjustable time bands 251 that designate a time period used to find
matching photos which are viewed in image area 100 (Figs. 1 and 3; 8:1-8).
Parker
4. Parker is directed to method of organizing digital objects on a
histogram timeline which identifies a number of visual digital objects
organized according to predetermined time periods; wherein, the horizontal
axis of the timeline represents units of time, and the vertical axis represents
the number of digital multimedia objects (Abstract; Figs. 5, 6C, and 6G;
¶ [0033]).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-11 and 13-18
Appellants do not provide a separate argument with respect to
independent claims 1, 11, 13, and 16 (App. Br. 6-13). Appellants do not
provide arguments with respect to dependent claims 2-10, 14, 15, 17, and 18
(App. Br. 13). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as being representative of the
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-012027
Application 10/715,162

5
Appellants point out that the Examiner admits that the cited references
do not disclose “‘segments of time having length along [sic] time bar
(horizontally) which depends on the amount of files associated with that
length’” as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 12). Appellants contend that “the
timeline [of Rothmuller] appears to be divided into increments of six-month
duration, with all increments having the same length along the timeline,
regardless of the number of media files that may be respectively associated
with any individual increment” (App. Br. 9). According to Appellants, “the
time bands [251 of Rothmuller] do not divide the timeline into segments of
unit time, but define … a segment of arbitrary time” and that “the length of
the segment defined between the time bands does not depend on the number
of files” (App. Br. 9-10). Appellants further contend that “Parker does not
teach the generation of a timeline that divides time into segments of unit
time that each have a length along the time bar that depends on the amount
of media files associated with the segment” (App. Br. 11). According to
Appellants, “the spacing of the histogram bins in Parker does not depend on
the number of media files associated with the times represented by the
respective bins, but depends on the start and end dates of the timeline, ‘the
resolution and physical size of the display area,’ and possibly a ‘human
visual system model’” (App. Br. 11).
Furthermore, Appellants assert that “a ‘reversal’ of the concepts
presented in Rothmuller and/or Parker [as proposed by the Examiner] would
simply result in a relatively traditional time-based histogram, with a
uniformly-scaled independent axis, but with the independent axis of the
histogram being oriented vertically and the dependent axis being oriented
horizontally” which differs from the recited claim (App. Br. 13). According
Appeal 2009-012027
Application 10/715,162

6
to Appellants, the “statements of law are inapplicable to the present
application” since “In re Stevens dealt with a recognized need for
adjustability in a situation where separate items (i. e., fishing poles) of
varying size were already available” which “is clearly unrelated to the
present case” (App. Br. 12).
However, the Examiner finds that Rothmuller teaches “the time bar
shown above is divided into segments of time of years, six months and six
months further are divided into segments of time”; wherein, the “[s]ix
months are further divided into segments of time, which show graphs of how
much media is associated with it” (Ans. 22). The Examiner notes that “[t]he
bar graphs represented for certain segments of time show respective
length/height, which is along the time bar for that segment of time and this
respective length/height represents the amount of media/photos associated
with that time segment” (Ans. 22-23). The Examiner finds further that
“Parker's timeline is being divided into units of time as being days, months,
or years”; wherein, “Figure 6G shows the bar graph with day as being a unit
of time” and “respective length/height [of the bar], which is along the time
bar for that day/segment of time … represents the amount of media/photos
associated with that day/time segment”; wherein, a user, for example, by
“clicking on [M]ay 6th/segment of time provides a respective length along
the time bar which depends on the amounts of media files associated [with]
that segment of time” (Ans. 23-24). Thus, “to modify the vertical graphs
for a specific time segment to horizontal graph along the time bar …
involves only routine skill in the art” and would represent “a mere reversal
of the essential working parts of a device” (Ans. 6, citing In re Stevens, 101
USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) and In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1931)).
Appeal 2009-012027
Application 10/715,162

7
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that “the vertical bar graphs
shown in Fig. 3 of Rothmuller are each associated with a respective time in
the timeline, but are not segments of unit time that result from dividing the
time associated with a time bar, as recited in the independent claims of the
present application” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants assert that “the vertical bar
graphs shown in Fig. 3 of Rothmuller have respective lengths transverse to
the timeline that depend upon the amount of media files associated with the
respective bar graph” (id.). Appellants argue that “bar graphs of Parker (i.e.,
the bars rising vertically from each of the boxes numbered 1, 2, 3 ... ) are not
‘along the time bar’ as asserted by the Examiner” and that the Examiner
appears to err in that he refers to the “‘thumbnail or iconic representations’”
which “are in no way segments of unit time that result from dividing the
time associated with a time bar” (Reply Br. 4-5).
Appellants’ argument that that the cited references do not disclose
“segments of time having length along [sic] time bar (horizontally) which
depends on the amount of files associated with that length” is not
commensurate in scope with the specific language of claim 1 (App. Br. 12).
In particular, claim 1 does not recite such “horizontally” oriented time bars
as Appellants argue. Thus, we determine on this Appeal whether
Rothmuller and Parker discloses “a time bar that divides time into segments
of unit time, each segment of unit time having a respective length along the
time bar that depends upon the amount of media files associated with the
respective segment of unit time” as specifically required by claim 1.
To determine whether the combined teachings of Rothmuller and
Parker teaches or would have suggested the time bar as recited in claim 1,
we give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
App
App

Spec
How
In re
mean
reaso
(whe
findi
obje
and
3 rep
repre
wher
upon
Sinc
inter
a tim
the b
amou
eal 2009-0
lication 10
ification.
ever, we w
Van Geun
Claim 1
, includes
nable inte
ther vertic
Rothmul
ng, and di
ct distribut
searchable
roduced b
sentative
ein, a desi
the area d
e the width
val) of eac
e bar that
ar heights
nt of med
12027
/715,162
See In re M
ill not rea
s, 988 F.2
does not p
, or presen
rpretation
ally or ho
ler is direc
splaying o
ions can b
based upo
elow, incl
of the num
gnated tim
efined bet
(which re
h vertical
is divided
of the bar
ia files” si
orris, 12
d limitatio
d 1181, 1
lace any li
ts. Thus,
as any rel
rizontally)
ted to a m
bjects such
e displaye
n time and
udes a vert
ber of pho
e period f
ween the t
presents a
bar are no
into segm
s represen
nce the ba
8
7 F.3d 104
ns from th
184 (Fed. C
mitation o
we give th
ative posit
, as specif
ethod and
as digital
d as histog
date (FF
ical bar gr
tos taken
or matchin
ime bans 2
time peri
t uniform,
ents of tim
t the “leng
r height is
8, 1054 (F
e Specific
ir. 1993)
n what “a
is claim li
ion with re
ically defin
apparatus
images; w
rams havi
2). The ti
aph with b
during a g
g photos i
51:
od within
we find th
e (FF 3).
th” that “d
indicative
ed. Cir. 1
ation into
.
long the tim
mitation it
spect to th
ed in clai
for manag
herein, da
ng a timel
meline 25
ar heights
iven perio
s customiz
each 6 mo
e timeline
We find fu
epends up
of the num
997).
the claims
e bar”
s broadest
e time bar
m 1.
ing,
tabase
ine (FF 1)
0, in Figur
that are
d of time;
able base
nth
represents
rther that
on the
ber of
.

e
d

App
App

phot
that
leng
since
(FF
num
perio
and t
4). F
days
the n
We f
divid
the b
files
obje
that
that
eal 2009-0
lication 10
os (FF 3).
the bar wid
th (bar hei
the bars a
3).
In additi
ber of visu
ds; where
he vertica
igure 6G,
of the mo
umber of
ind the tim
ed into se
ars repres
” since the
cts (FF 4).
each vertic
is in a rela
12027
/715,162
In accord
ths repres
ght) which
re connec
on, Parker
al digital o
in, the hor
l axis repr
reproduce
nth of May
digital ima
eline alon
gments of
ent the “le
bar heigh
In accord
al bar repr
tive positio
ance with
ent the seg
is in a rel
ted to the t
discloses
bjects org
izontal axi
esents the
d below, c
and bars
ges corres
g the hori
time (FF 4
ngth” that
t is indicat
ance with
esents a s
n with res
9
the claim i
ments of
ative posi
imeline an
a histogram
anized acc
s of the tim
number of
learly illu
along the
ponding to
zontal axis
). We fin
“depends
ive of the
the claim
egment of
pect to the
nterpretati
unit time h
tion with r
d spaced
timeline
ording to
eline rep
digital mu
strates an
horizontal
each day
to be the
d further t
upon the a
number of
interpretat
unit time w
time bar
on above,
aving a re
espect to t
along the t
which ide
predeterm
resents un
ltimedia o
horizontal
axis that r
:

time bar th
hat the bar
mount of m
digital mu
ion above
hich has
since the b
we find
spective
he time ba
imeline
ntifies a
ined time
its of time
bjects (FF
axis of
epresent
at is
heights o
edia
ltimedia
, we find
a length
ars are
r

f
Appeal 2009-012027
Application 10/715,162

10
connected to the timeline and spaced along the timeline (FF 4). That is, we
find that “a time bar that divides time into segments of unit time, each
segment of unit time having a respective length along the time bar that
depends upon the amount of media files associated with the respective
segment of unit time” reads on both timelines disclosed in Rothmuller and
Parker.
In view of our claim interpretation above, we find that disclosure from
either reference, Rothmuller or Parker, teaches and would have suggested
providing “a time bar that divides time into segments of unit time, each
segment of unit time having a respective length along the time bar that
depends upon the amount of media files associated with the respective
segment of unit time,” as specifically required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 11, 13, and 16 and claims 2-10, 14, 15,
17, and 18 depending from claims 1, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Rothmuller in view of Parker.
Claim 12
Appellants do not provide separate arguments with respect to 12 other
than to argue “that it is not possible to reject Claim 12 based solely on
Rothmuller, given that the claim from which it depends, Claim 11, was
rejected based on the combination of Rothmuller and Parker” (App. Br. 13).
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, we find no deficiencies in
the Examiner’s finding that the teachings of either Rothmuller or Parker
disclose the features of claim 1.
Appeal 2009-012027
Application 10/715,162

11
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Rothmuller.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 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

peb