12882438 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

Ex Parte Morris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 2016

12882438 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/882,438 09/15/2010 72058 7590 02/16/2016 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR James T. Morris 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. 58083/395404(M065Cl) 2947 EXAMINER TRAN,PAULP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2016 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): ipefiling@kilpatrickstockton.com j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES T. MORRIS, SAMUEL J. MACDONNELL, DMITRI B. ABRAMOV, LAURENTE. SELLIER, DAVID BLISS, JACQUIE MOSS, NORMAN K. MEYROWITZ, BRIAN P. CONNOLLY, BASIL C. HOSMER, SAURA V CHATTERJEE, CHRISTOPHER 0. PETERSON, and GUNO SUTIONO Appeal2014-003359 Application 12/882,438 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 78-98. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Claims 1-77 have been canceled. App. Br. 16. Appeal2014-003359 Application 12/882,438 EXEMPLARY CLAIM Claim 78 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 78. A mobile device comprising: an operating system; a memory comprising applications for visually presenting interactive multimedia content on the mobile device, wherein the applications present said content using data stored in the memory; and a user interface comprising a touch screen displaying the interactive multimedia content of the applications and receiving input to navigate to different ones of the applications and to navigate within the interactive multimedia content; and wherein the applications comprise one or more system applications and one or more other applications that are not system applications, wherein the applications comprise an application listing application providing information on available applications that are available to be added via download through a wireless network to the mobile device, wherein adding an available application of the available applications to the mobile device comprises adding the available application via download through the wireless network to the mobile device, wherein the mobile device restricts access to at least some system application data stored on the mobile device to be used only by said one or more system applications. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 78-87 and 91-98 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Chen (US 2005/0172315 A 1; published Aug. 4, 2005) and Mitchelmore (US 2002/0090934 Al; published July 11, 2002). Final Act. 8-18. 2 Appeal2014-003359 Application 12/882,438 Claims 88-90 stand rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over the combination of Chen, Mitchelmore, and Kohavi (US 7,801,964 B2; issued Sept. 21, 2010). Final Act. 18-19. ISSUES Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues: A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chen and Mitchelmore teaches or suggests "an application listing application providing information on available applications that are available to be added via download through a wireless network to the mobile device" (hereinafter the "application listing application" limitation) and "adding the available application via download through the wireless network to the mobile device" (hereinafter the "adding" limitation), as recited in independent claim 78? B) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chen and Mitchelmore teaches or suggests "the channel listing channel providing information on a plurality of available channels that are available to be added to the mobile unit" (hereinafter the "channel listing" limitation) and "downloading the available channel's channel application ... through a wireless network to the mobile unit" (hereinafter the "downloading" limitation), as recited in independent claim 83? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of Appellants' contentions. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions that the Examiner's rejections of the claims are in error. 3 Appeal2014-003359 Application 12/882,438 Issue A: Claims 78---82 Appellants contend the combination Chen does not teach or suggest the "application listing application" and Mitchelmore does not teach or suggest the "adding" limitations recited in claim 78. App. Br. 7-9, 10-11; Reply Br. 1-3, 4--5. In particular, Appellants argue Chen merely uses its EPG (electronic program guide) and guide application to launch client applications used to provide local or remote content and does not disclose that applications 118(k) are added to the client devices. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue Mitchelmore describes the ability to download data content and/or applications, but does not describe downloading applications for visually presenting interactive multimedia content using data stored in device memory. App. Br. 10. We are not persuaded by these arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Chen teaches an application listing application that provides information on available applications that are available to be added to the mobile device. Final Act. 9. The cited sections of Chen teach an EPG (application listing application) that includes a list of content available for output on the client, including representations of games that may be output through remote execution of an application or location execution of an application on the device . See Chen i-fi-f 18, 40. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of "adding," we agree with the Examiner that a list of games available to be output to the mobile devices teaches or suggests a list of applications available to be added to the mobile device. We further agree with the Examiner that Mitchelmore teaches adding an available application via download through the wireless network to the mobile device. Final Act. 10; see Mitchelmore i-f 104. Thus, we agree with 4 Appeal2014-003359 Application 12/882,438 the Examiner that the combination of Chen and Mitchelmore teaches or suggests the "application listing application" and "adding" limitations of claim 1. We note Appellants' arguments against Chen and Mitchelmore attack the references individually when the rejection is based on the combination. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). We also observe that Appellants' arguments directed to the type of the application that must be downloaded are not commensurate with the scope of the claim because the limitation "for visually presenting interactive multimedia content" modifies "applications" and not "available applications." Furthermore, even if the claim was so limited, Appellants' do not persuasively argue the differences between "an application for visually presenting interactive multimedia content" and Mitchelmore's web management system, which uses a subscription file (data in memory) to present channel data. See Mitchelmore i-fi-f 104, 107-109. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the combination of Chen and Mitchelmore is improper because it would improperly change the principle of operation of Chen's EPG. App. Br. 13- 14; Reply Br. 6-7. The Examiner provides articulated reasoning, with rational underpinning, for combining the references. Final Act. 11; Ans. 22. The combination modifies Chen's (EPG) to wirelessly download applications. Ans. 22. Appellants do not provide persuasive argument or evidence that such a modification would change the principle of operation of Chen or that Chen otherwise "teaches away" from the modification. For the reasons stated above, Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 78. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. 5 Appeal2014-003359 Application 12/882,438 Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 78 and its dependent claims 79-82, which are not separately argued. Issue B: Claims 83-98 Appellants argue Chen does not disclose the "channel listing" limitation recited in claim 83 because Chen's EPG and guide application are not described as used to add any channels. App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3- 4. Appellants further argue Mitchelmore does not disclose the "downloading" limitation recited in claim 83. App. Br. 11-12. Specifically, Appellants argue Mitchelmore' s subscription managers are not channel applications because they do not provide information for visually presenting a channel. App. Br. 12. We observe that Appellants' arguments are similar to those presented with respect to claim 78 and are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra in Issue A. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Chen teaches or suggests a channel listing channel providing information on a plurality of available channels that are available to be added to the mobile device and Mitchelmore teaches or suggests downloading the available channel's channel application through a wireless network. Final Act. 13-15; see Chen i-fi-f 18, 40; Mitchelmore i-fi-f 104, 107-109. Thus, we agree the combination of Chen and Mitchelmore teaches or suggests the "channel listing" and "downloading" limitations. Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 83. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of: (1) claim 83; (2) claim 93, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments 6 Appeal2014-003359 Application 12/882,438 made for claim 83 (App. Br. 11 ); and (3) claims 84--92 and 94--98, which are not separately argued. 2 We further sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 88-90 for which Appellants merely contend the additional reference used in this rejection (Kohavi) does not make up for the purported deficiencies in the rejection of claim 83 from which these claims depend. App. Br. 14--15. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 78-98. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFRIMED 2 We observe claim 98 improperly depends from canceled claim 1. As claim 98 is not separately argued, the error does not affect the outcome of this appeal. However, in the event of further prosecution of this application, we direct the Examiner and Appellants' attention to the improper dependency. 7