Ex Parte Oksanen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2012

10715095 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte OLLI OKSANEN and CHRISTIAN LINDHOLM
____________________

Appeal 2010-006798
Application 10/715,0951
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed November 17, 2003. The real party in interest is Nokia
Corp. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2010-006798
Application 10/715,095

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-25, 27, and 29-47, which are all the
claims remaining in the application. Claims 2, 6, 26, and 28 have been
canceled. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns a media file management
application incorporating a browsing mechanism for locating media files
and, in particular, a computer program product, apparatus, and method for
providing access to digital media files on a digital device by generating a
media view including a timeline and media handle. (Spec. 1:3-5; 3:28-4:30;
Abstract.)2
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, with disputed limitations
italicized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A computer program product comprising a computer-
useable medium having computer-readable instructions
embodied thereon for providing access to digital media files on
a digital device, said computer-readable instructions
comprising:
first instructions adapted to generate a media view that
provides access to the digital media files; and

2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”)
filed October 30, 2009; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February 1,
2010. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November
30, 2009.
Appeal 2010-006798
Application 10/715,095

3

second instructions adapted to generate a timeline view
comprising a scrolling time bar and a media handle that
provides the ability to browse media files in the media view
generated by the computer program product by using the media
handle, the second instructions further adapted to provide the
ability to browse for media files matching a chosen browse
parameter and according to a manually-controlled speed of the
browsing determined by the relative deviated position of the
media handle from a centerline position of the scrolling time
bar for the media handle, and the second instructions further
adapted to automatically decrease the manually-controlled
speed of the browsing by computer program instruction control
when a media file having the chosen browse parameter
approaches or is in the media view.

Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, 17-25, 27, 29-45, and
47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2003/0033296
A1, published Feb. 13, 2003 (“Rothmuller”), US 6,496,842 B1, issued Dec.
17, 2002 (“Lyness”), and US 6,337,694 B1, issued Jan. 8, 2002 (“Becker”).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rothmuller, Lyness, Becker, and US
5,615,347, issued Mar. 25, 1997 (“Davis”).

ISSUE
Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Rothmuller,
Lyness, and Becker collectively would have taught or suggested
“instructions adapted to generate a timeline view comprising a scrolling time
Appeal 2010-006798
Application 10/715,095

4

bar and a media handle,” “to provide the ability to browse for media files . . .
according to a manually-controlled speed of the browsing determined by the
relative deviated position of the media handle from a centerline position of
the scrolling time bar for the media handle,” and “to automatically decrease
the manually-controlled speed of the browsing by computer program
instruction control when a media file having the chosen browse parameter
approaches or is in the media view” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim
1 and commensurate limitations of claims 22, 24, and 42?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action as our own.

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants’ arguments (Br. 9-19), we select independent
claim 1 and dependent claims 7 and 8 as representative of Appellants’
arguments and groupings with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 7-25, 27, and 29-47.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The § 103 Rejection of Claim 1
Appellants contend that: (1) “the asserted disclosure of the Rothmuller
publication, taken alone or in combination with the disclosure of the Lyness
patent and the Becker patent, fails to teach or suggest ‘a scrolling time bar’”
(App. Br. 10; see id. at 9-12; Reply Br. 2-4); (2) “the asserted disclosure of
the Lyness patent, taken alone or in combination with the disclosure of the
Rothmuller publication and the Becker patent, fails to teach or suggest a
centerline position of the scrolling time bar” (App. Br. 12; see Reply Br. 5);
Appeal 2010-006798
Application 10/715,095

5

and (3) “the asserted disclosure of the Lyness patent, taken alone or in
combination with the disclosure of the Rothmuller publication and the
Becker patent, fails to teach or suggest a relative deviated position of a
media handle from a centerline position of a scrolling time bar” (App. Br.
13; see Reply Br. 5).
The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of the obviousness
rejection in the Examiner’s Answer with respect to each of the claims (Ans.
3-25) and, in particular, the rejection of claim 1 (Ans. 4-6, 18-23).
Specifically, the Examiner provides a detailed explanation with respect to
Rothmuller’s disclosure of a scrollable timeline or time bar. (Ans. 4-5, 18-
19 (citing Rothmuller, ¶¶ [0029], [0030]; Figs. 1, 3).) The Examiner also
provides a detailed discussion concerning Lyness’s “return-to-center user
interface control tool,” which indicates the distance (displacement) from the
center of the displayed hierarchy. (Ans. 5; id. at 19-22 (citing Lyness, col. 3,
ll. 1-7, 10-22; col. 14, ll. 28-31; col. 15, l. 39 to col. 16, l. 51; Figs. 15, 16).)
The Examiner also discusses Becker’s disclosure of dynamically varying the
scrolling speed as a user scrolls through displayed objects. (Ans. 5-6 (citing
Becker, col. 1, ll. 1-18; col. 2, ll. 12-21, 32-37, 57-67; col. 5, ll. 44-56).) We
adopt these findings and this reasoning as our own.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion that the
combination of Rothmuller, Lyness, and Becker would have taught or at
least suggested the disputed features of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in the Answer,
Appeal 2010-006798
Application 10/715,095

6

which we incorporate herein by reference. (Ans. 3-25.) We limit our
additional analysis to the following points of emphasis.
We initially note that all of the argued limitations with respect to
claim 1 fail to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art either
structurally or functionally. Specifically, the recited displayed features – the
“timeline view comprising a scrolling time bar and a media handle” and
“manually-controlled speed of the browsing determined by the relative
deviated position of the media handle from a centerline position of the
scrolling time bar for the media handle” (claim 1) are all essentially non-
functional descriptive material in that the limitations simply describe a
displayed image – i.e., data – which is no different from an image on a piece
of paper (printed matter). The data received or displayed on a screen
constitutes non-functional descriptive material in that the underlying
structure and functionality remain the same regardless of what the data
constitutes, how the data may be named, or the relationship among the data
and do not further limit the claimed invention either functionally or
structurally. The informational content of the data thus represents non-
functional descriptive material, which “does not lend patentability to an
otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.” Ex
parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See Ex
parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Fed. Cir.
Appeal No. 2006-1003), aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006) (“wellness-related”
data in databases and communicated on distributed network did not
functionally change either the data storage system or the communication
system used in the claimed method). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,
Appeal 2010-006798
Application 10/715,095

7

1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Nehls, 88 USPQ2d at 1887-90 (discussing non-
functional descriptive material).
Even if we arguendo ascribe some patentable weight to the
limitations, as explained by the Examiner, the combination of Rothmuller,
Lyness, and Becker teaches or at least would have suggested each of these
broadly claimed features – a “scrolling time bar” (scrollable timeline), a
“media handle” (indicator – i.e., return to center indicator), as well as a
center and a distance from center (“deviated position . . . from a centerline
position”). (Ans. 4-6, 18-23.)
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1 and we affirm
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1.
The § 103 Rejections of Claims 7 and 8
Appellants also contend, with respect to claim 7, that the combination
of Rothmuller, Lyness, and Becker does not teach or suggest “decreasing the
speed of browsing in relation to the distance of an approaching media file”
(claim 7). (App. Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 6.) With respect to claim 8,
Appellants contend that the combination of Rothmuller, Lyness, and Becker
does not teach or suggest “increasing the speed of browsing when a media
file having the chosen browse parameter bypasses the centerline position of
the media view” (claim 8). (App. Br. 16-19; Reply Br. 7-8.)
As with claim 1 (supra), the Examiner sets forth a detailed
explanation of the obviousness rejection in the Examiner’s Answer with
respect to claims 7 (Ans. 7-8, 23-24) and 8 (id. at 8, 24-25). The Examiner
finds that Becker describes dynamically varying the scrolling speed. (Ans.
5-6, 7-8, 23-25 (citing Becker, col. 1, ll. 8-13; col. 2, ll. 57-67; col. 5, ll. 44-
Appeal 2010-006798
Application 10/715,095

8

56).) The Examiner also finds Lyness describes a tool which indicates the
displacement from the center. (Ans. 5, 8 (citing Lyness, col. 14, ll. 28-31).)
We adopt these findings and this reasoning as our own.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion that the
combination of Rothmuller, Lyness, and Becker would have taught or at
least suggested the disputed features of representative claims 7 and 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 8 for the
reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein by reference.
(Ans. 7-8; 23-25.) We limit our additional analysis to the following points
of emphasis.
As with claim 1 (supra), all of the argued limitations in claims 7 and 8
are non-functional descriptive material, which fail to distinguish the claimed
invention from the prior art either structurally or functionally. Even if we
arguendo ascribe some patentable weight to the limitations, as explained by
the Examiner, the combination of Rothmuller, Lyness, and Becker teaches or
at least would have suggested each of these broadly claimed features –
“decreasing the speed of browsing in relation to the distance of an
approaching media file” (decreasing scrolling speed in relation to an object)
and “increasing the speed of browsing when a media file having the chosen
browse parameter bypasses the centerline position of the media view”
(increasing scrolling speed in relation to an object), as well as a center and a
distance from center. (Ans. 7-8; 23-25.)
We find Becker describes varying scrolling speed in relation to
objects, and in particular, decreasing (slowing) scrolling speed in relation to
Appeal 2010-006798
Application 10/715,095

9

content (Becker, col. 5, ll. 59-60, 63-66; col. 6, ll. 40-45), which we
conclude would have at least suggested “decreasing the speed of browsing in
relation to the distance of an approaching media file” (claim 7).
Accordingly, we also agree with the Examiner with respect to claim 8 and
conclude Becker also would have at least suggested increasing scrolling
speed in relation to an object because decreasing scrolling speed requires
increasing scrolling speed at some point (in relation to some object).
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative dependent claims 7 and 8, and we
affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 8.
The § 103 Rejections of Claims 3-5, 9-25, 27, and 29-47
Appellants do not present separate arguments with respect to
independent claims 22, 24, and 42, or dependent claims 3-5, 9-21, 23, 25,
27, 29-41, and 43-47. (Br. 12, 13, 19.) Independent claims 22, 24, and 42
include limitations commensurate in scope to claim 1. Appellants do not
address the obviousness rejection of claims 16 and 46 (over Rothmuller,
Lyness, Becker, and Davis). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims for the reasons discuss with respect to claims 1, 7,
and 8 (supra).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 3-5, 7-25, 27, and 29-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2010-006798
Application 10/715,095

10

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7-25, 27, and
29-47.
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

tkl