11430263 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

Ex Parte Nurmela et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 2016

11430263 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111430,263 05/08/2006 10949 7590 02/26/2016 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 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Marja-Leena Nurmela 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. 042933/407136 3646 EXAMINER MATTHEWS, ANDRE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2016 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): usptomail@alston.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARJA-LEENA NURMELA, HEINI TUORILA, and DOMINICK REED Appeal2014-004003 Application 11/430,263 Technology Center 2600 Before DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-13, 15-17, and 19-23. Claims 3-7, 14, and 18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation. Br. 1. Appeal2014-004003 Application 11/430,263 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention generally relates to "portable music players and more particularly to user input of portable mobile terminals." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: receiving user input indicating at least one tap against a tap sensitive spatial region of a surface of a portable music player, the surface of the portable music player being divided into a plurality of tap sensitive spatial regions, wherein the plurality of tap sensitive spatial regions comprise at least: a first surface of the portable music player, a second surface of the portable music player, and a third surface of the portable music player; detecting a direction of said at least one tap and the tap sensitive spatial region corresponding to the at least one tap wherein the direction and tap sensitive spatial region of the at least one tap is different from a direction and a tap sensitive spatial region of another at least one tap, and wherein each set of direction and tap sensitive spatial region corresponds to different actions; determining a previous action, wherein the previous action was performed before receiving user input indicating the at least one tap; and determining an action by querying a table, wherein the table associates the direction, the tap sensitive spatial region of said tap, and the previous action with the action, wherein the action comprises at least one of: skip to the next song, return to the previous song, pause the current song, or play the current song, wherein a tap on the first surface of the portable music player is associated with the action of skip to the next song, wherein a tap on the third surface of the portable music player is associated with the action of return to the previous song, and wherein a tap on the second surface of the portable music 2 Appeal2014-004003 Application 11/430,263 player is associated with the action of either pause the current song or play the current song. Rejection Claims 1, 2, 8-13, 15-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cranfill (US 2007/0220443 Al, published Sept. 20, 2007), Linjama (US 2004/0169674 Al, published Sept. 2, 2004), and Pallakoff (US 2005/0012723 Al, Jan. 20, 2005). Final Act. 2-11. ANALYSIS Appellants do not substantively argue the claims separately, but instead rely on the same arguments for all claims. See Br. 4--11. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim. Remaining claims 2, 8-13, 15-17, and 19-23 stand or fall together with claim 1. Appellants contend the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because the combination of Cranfill, Linjama, and Pallakoff fails to teach or suggest: "a plurality of tap sensitive spatial regions" that includes "a first surface of the portable music player, a second surface of the portable music player, and a third surface of the portable music player" and "determining an action by querying a table ... wherein the action comprises at least one of: skip to the next song, return to the previous song, pause the current song, or play the current song, wherein a tap on the first surface of the portable music player is associated with the action of skip to the next song, wherein a tap on the third surface of the portable music player is associated with the action of return to the next song, and wherein a tap on the second surface of the portable music player is associated with the action of either pause the current song or play the current song," 3 Appeal2014-004003 Application 11/430,263 as required by claim 1. Br. 8, see also 5-7, 9, 10. Appellants contend Cranfill fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations because Cranfill does not teach or suggest detecting a direction or a tap sensitive spatial region of a tap and associating specific actions of the portable music player with taps on the right, left and front surfaces of the portable music device, wherein the actions include skipping to the next song, returning to a previous song, pausing the current song, or playing the current song. Br. 8. Appellants contend Linjama fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations because Linjama does not teach or suggest "dedicating specific surfaces of a music player to specific actions." Br. 9. Appellants contend Pallakoff fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations because Pallakoff does not teach or suggest detecting a direction of a tap or "performing specific actions related to a portable music player based on taps to a first, second, and third surfaces of the portable music player." Br. 9. Appellants also contend "[ s ]ince each of the cited references fail to teach or suggest [the disputed limitations] it logically follows that no combination of the cited references teaches or suggests this same recitation." Br. 10. We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon the combined teachings of the applied references. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner finds Cranfill discloses a user interface that can include a directional navigation interface and a scrolling strip that at least partially circumscribes the navigation device. Ans. 12 (citing Cranfill, Abstract). The Examiner finds (Ans. 13) Cranfill teaches the scrolling strip 4 Appeal2014-004003 Application 11/430,263 supports music function keys including "fast forward 220 and fast reverse 222, which may be zones or regions, of the strip" and includes a dedicated play/pause 230 at its bottom. Cranfill i-f 42. The Examiner finds Linjama teaches "the method of detecting a tap on the surface of the device where an accelerometer can detect if the tap came from the x-axis, y-axis, or z-axis." Ans. 13 (citing Linjama i-f 6). The Examiner finds Linjama also teaches that specific functions will be executed based on the direction of the tap and the axis of the tap and that detecting a tap on the side or the front of the device will cause a different action to be performed (Ans. 13 (citing Linjama i-f 27; Fig. 1)) and that the actions are determined by querying a table (Ans. 4 (citing Linjama Fig. 1, steps 106, 109, 112)). We determine these findings are reasonable and supported by the evidence, as explained by the Examiner. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes: Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the device of Linjama where the system executes a specific fi1nction based on direction of taps on any surface of a device could be programmed with the teachings of Cranfill where a device where a music player function would be executed when the system recognizes a tap on a distinct location of a surface, so that music player functions could be performed in a mobile device. Ans. 13. Appellants' contentions fail to address what the combined teachings of the applied references would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art and, therefore, are unpersuasive of error. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and claims 2, 8-13, 15-17, and 19-23, which fall with claim 1. 5 Appeal2014-004003 Application 11/430,263 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-13, 15-17, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6