Ex Parte Mistry et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201714015873 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/015,873 08/30/2013 Pranav Mistry 082499.0105 2124 121588 7590 06/02/2017 Baker Botts L.L.P./Samsung 2001 Ross Avenue SUITE 700 Dallas, TX 75201 EXAMINER HIGGS, STELLA EUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2017 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): PTOmaill @bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PRANAV MISTRY, LINING YAO, JOHN SNAVELY, EVA-MARIA OFFENBERG, LINK CHUN HUANG, and CATHY KIM Appeal 2016-0087071 Application 14/015,873 Technology Center 2100 Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JUSTIN BUSCH, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. YAP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—30, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal 2016-008707 Application 14/015,873 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention “generally relates to an [sic] wearable device.” (Specification (filed August 30, 2013) (“Spec.”) 12.) Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below (with minor reformatting and corrections): 1. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the processors comprising instructions executable by the processors, the processors being operable when executing the instructions to: present on a display of the apparatus a first screen that corresponds to a first mode of the apparatus, the first screen being in a first level of a graphical user interface (GUI) hierarchy and occupying a substantial portion of the display when presented, the first level of the GUI hierarchy comprising: a first plurality of screens accessible in a first direction from a home screen, each of the first plurality of screens corresponding to a fixed mode of the apparatus, the first plurality of screen[s] always available for selection within the first level of the GUI hierarchy corresponding to the first mode; a second plurality of screens accessible in a second direction from the home screen, each of the second plurality of screens corresponding to a variable contextual mode of the apparatus, the particular second plurality of screens that are available for selection within the first level of the GUI hierarchy varying based on a current context of the apparatus; and the home screen, the home screen separating the first plurality of screens from the second 2 Appeal 2016-008707 Application 14/015,873 plurality of screens such that any navigation between the first plurality of screens and the second plurality of screens passes through the home screen; in response to a transition event at the first screen, present a second screen that corresponds to a second mode of the apparatus, the second screen being in the first level of the GUI hierarchy and occupying the substantial portion of the display when presented; in response to a selection event at the first screen, present a third screen that corresponds to a first function of the first mode of the apparatus, the third screen being in a second level of the GUI hierarchy and occupying the substantial portion of the display when presented; and in response to a transition event at the third screen, present a fourth screen that corresponds to a second function of the first mode of the apparatus, the fourth screen being in the second level of the GUI hierarchy and occupying the substantial portion of the display when presented. Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Narayanaswami US 6,556,222 B1 Apr. 29, 2003 Howard et al. (“Howard”) US 2004/0130581 Al July 8, 2004 Kim US 2004/0209642 Al Oct. 21,2004 Rosenthal US 2005/0137470 Al June 23, 2005 Kim et al. (“Kim ’042”) US 2007/0211042 Al Sep. 13, 2007 Lyons et al. (“Lvons”) US 2009/0059730 Al Mar. 5, 2009 3 Appeal 2016-008707 Application 14/015,873 Mooring et al. (“Mooring”) Pozzo Di Borgo et al. (“Pozzo Di Borgo”) US 8,289,162 B2 US 2013/0142016 Al Oct. 16, 2012 June 6, 2013 Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 23, 24, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howard, in view of Pozzo Di Borgo, and further in view of Lyons. (See Final Office Action (mailed May 29, 2015) (“Final Act.”) 3-8.) Claims 3—5, 7, 14—16, 18, 25—27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howard, in view of Pozzo Di Borgo and Lyons, and further in view of Rosenthal and Kim ’042. (See Final Act. 8—11.) Claims 6, 17, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howard, in view of Pozzo Di Borgo, Lyons, Rosenthal, and Kim ’042, and further in view of Mooring. (See Final Act. 11—12.) Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howard, in view of Pozzo Di Borgo, Lyons, Rosenthal, and Kim ’042, and further in view of Narayanaswami. (See Final Act. 12-13.) Claims 10, 11,21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howard, in view of Pozzo Di Borgo and Lyons, and further in view of Kim. (See Final Act. 13—14.) 4 Appeal 2016-008707 Application 14/015,873 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—30. “the first plurality of screen[s] always available for selection, ” “the particular second plurality of screens that are available for selection . . . based on a current context of the apparatus, ” and “the home screen separating the first plurality of screens from the second plurality of screens ” With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds Figure 6 and paragraphs 210 through 213 and 220 through 225 of Pozzo Di Borgo teach or suggest “the home screen . . .” limitation. (Final Act. 7.) Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Pozzo Di Borgo does not disclose any such home screen even under the Office’s interpretation.” (App. Br. 10.) Specifically, Appellants contend that the first plurality of screens must always be available for selection and the availability for selection of the second plurality of screens must be based on a current context of the apparatus. {Id. at 9-10.) In other words, Appellants are also contending that the cited references do not teach or suggest “the first plurality of screen always available for selection” and “the particular second plurality of screens that are available for selection . . . based on a current context of the apparatus” limitations. “the home screen separating the first plurality of screens from the second plurality of screens” We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding this limitation and we adopt, as our own, the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, regarding this issue, in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 5 Appeal 2016-008707 Application 14/015,873 7) and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 14—17). Figure 6 of Pozzo Di Borgo is reproduced below. rv> 210 i; "w 21 Fig. 6 Figure 6 “illustrates schematically the virtual arrangement of different screens in the watch’s menu.” (Pozzo Di Borgo 138.) According to the Examiner: home screen, 23, separates a first plurality of screens (220-225) navigable in the x direction from the home screen from a second plurality of screens (210—213) navigable in the y direction from the home screen. Accordingly, since navigation to the screens of column 21 and the screens of row 22 are navigable from screen 23, screen 23 is interpreted as reading upon a “homescreen” as claimed by the Application. . . . (Final Act. 7, emphasis omitted.) According to the Examiner, the “‘homescreens’ taught in Pozzo Di Borgo and Lyons both teach separating a 6 Appeal 2016-008707 Application 14/015,873 first plurality of screens in the vertical direction from a second plurality of screens in the horizontal direction such that navigation between the first plurality of screens and the second plurality of screens passes through the home screen.” (Ans. 16, emphasis added.) While Appellants contend that “Pozzo Di Borgo does not disclose any such home screen even under the Office’s interpretation,” (App. Br. 10), Appellants do not explain how the home screen is missing in Pozzo Di Borgo. We note that “the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. “the particular second plurality of screens that are available for selection . . . based on a current context of the apparatus” The Examiner finds that the combination of Pozzo Di Borgo and Lyons teaches or suggests this limitation. We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding this limitation and we adopt, as our own, the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, regarding this issue, in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6—7) and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. (Ans. 16—18.) While Appellants appear to contend that the combination fails to teach or suggest “the second plurality of screens [whose availability for selection varies based on a current context of the apparatus]” (App. Br. 9, emphasis omitted), Appellants do not rebut the Examiner’s detailed findings nor do Appellants offer substantive arguments why this 7 Appeal 2016-008707 Application 14/015,873 limitation is missing. In reLovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Appellants have, therefore, not persuaded us of Examiner error. “the first plurality of screen^] always available for selection” Appellants contend that the first plurality of screens are not always available for selection because “Lyons says nothing about whether [a watch mode and/or calendar mode] are always available to a user [and] even if the Office’s characterization of Lyons is correct, Lyons would still merely disclose modes that are available to a user, not a plurality of screens that are always available for selection.'’'’ (App. Br. 10; Reply 3 4.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding this limitation and we adopt, as our own, the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, regarding this issue, in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6—7) and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 16—18). For example, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that: Lyons further teaches that the device can revert and/or access the watch mode regardless of what mode it is in ([see,] e.g. [,] [0043], [0045]). Accordingly, the ability to revert and/or access the watch mode, essentially as a default mode, from any other mode can be reasonably interpreted that the watch mode is “always” accessible as a type of default mode. Furthermore, the apparatus of Lyons is a wearable watch wherein a skilled artisan would have recognized that time-related functionalities, such as the watch mode taught in Lyons, would obviously always be accessible to perform its basic operation of being a watch. (Ans. 17—18, emphasis added.) Figure 8 of Lyons is reproduced below. 8 Appeal 2016-008707 Application 14/015,873 Figure 8 “is a diagrammatic view illustrating use of the user interface or input device of the present invention to scroll through menus displayed by the display of the watch device.” (Lyons 114.) We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the screens shown above the watch in Figure 8 would always be available to a user in watch mode. Moreover, if the watch mode is always accessible to the user, the plurality of screens associated with the watch mode would obviously, if not necessarily, be always available to a user in watch mode. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Rationales for Combination The Examiner finds that: Accordingly, the combination of Pozzo Di Borgo in view of Lyons teach[es] the recited limitation. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Pozzo Di Borgo in view of Lyons in order to allow quick user interaction on small screen devices while conserving energy consumption (e.g.[,] see [0042] of Lyons). 9 Appeal 2016-008707 Application 14/015,873 Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Howard in view of Pozzo Di Borgo-Lyons because of the overlapping subject matter and the teaching from Pozzo Di Borgo-Lyons to quickly and easily navigate to a plurality of different operation screens on a small screen display (e.g. [,] see [0030] of Pozzo Di Borgo and [0003] of Lyons). (Final Act. 6—7, original emphasis omitted, italics added.) The Examiner further finds that: Other rationales for supporting the conclusion of obviousness include, applying known techniques to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way. It would have been obvious to use the known techniques of Lyons of providing both always available modes/screens and selectively available modes/screens based on the context of the watch device to improve the similar watch device of Pozzo Di Borgo in the same way as Lyons’ watch device is improved (e.g.[,] see KSR Int’l Co. v. Telef[le]x Inc.). (Ans. 20.) Appellants contend that the Examiner’s “motivation for combining Lyons with Pozzo-Di-Borgo does not support the Office’s rejection” because the Examiner “does not explain how conserving power through selective operation of GPS components would motivate one of ordinary skill to combine any screen in the watch or calendar modes of Lyons with the screens of Pozzo-Di-Borgo. . . .” (App. Br. 12; Reply 5.) We agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not explain sufficiently why “conserving power through selective operation of GPS components would motivate one of ordinary skill to combine” the references. However, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Pozzo Di Borgo in view of Lyons in order to allow quick user interaction on small screen devices.” (Final Act. 7—8, original emphasis omitted, italics added.) Appellants do not address this rationale in their Appeal Brief but 10 Appeal 2016-008707 Application 14/015,873 instead address it in their Reply Brief contending that this is a “new obviousness rationale.” Appellants’ contention regarding this rationale is a new argument that is raised in reply and is deemed waived. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[pjroperly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”); see also 37 C.F.R. 41.41(b)(2). We also agree with the Examiner’s additional rationale (Ans. 20 (discussing obvious to use known techniques to improve similar devices or methods when yielding no more than predictable results)) for combining the cited references. Appellants’ assertion that “the Office has not shown that ‘easily identify and accessing’ screens would then lead one of ordinary skill to arrange the time screens of Lyons and the screens of Pozzo Di Borgo in the specific way required by the claims” (Reply 7) is mere attorney argument and a conclusory statement, which is unsupported by factual evidence, and, thus is entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Importantly, we find that the Examiner has “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellants’ 11 Appeal 2016-008707 Application 14/015,873 further contention that the Examiner “does not address the fact that Lyons and Pozzo Di Borgo organize screens according to their purpose rather than their availability,” (Reply 7) is a new argument that is raised in reply and is deemed waived. 37 C.F.R. 41.41(b)(2). Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 12, 23, and 30 recite similar limitations and Appellants’ do not make separate arguments for these claims (App. Br. 7—13). Therefore, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 12, 23, and 30 and of claims 2—11, 13—22, and 24—29, which depend from either claim 1, 12, or 23, and are not argued separately (App. Br. 14). DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject 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 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation