Ex Parte Ostergaard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2016

12596689 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/596,689 01122/2010 Christian Ostergaard
100809 7590 11/17/2016
Core Wireless Licensing Ltd
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 1300
Plano, TX 75024
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.
CW.2622.USNl 3673
EXAMINER
HOPE, DARRIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2016 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):
ipadmin-core@core-wireless.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN OSTERGAARD
Appeal2015-006093
Application 12/596,689
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 29, 31-37, 39-42, and 44--48. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-006093
Application 12/596,689
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 29, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
29. A method for a portable apparatus, comprising:
enabling selection of a first item in a display view from a
plurality of folders containing one or more items, wherein the
plurality of folders are associated with different applications;
upon selection of the first item, associating the selected
first item with a playlist comprising at least the selected first
item; and
enabling selection of a further item or items from said
plurality of folders and associating said further item or items with
said playlist,
wherein the selected playlist items remain in their
respective folders, and
whereby a playlist is created without first grouping items
in a specific folder.
THE REJECTION
Claims 29, 31-37, 39-42, and 44--48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Moore et al. (US 2007/0055940 Al; Mar. 8,
2007).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Moore does not disclose "enabling selection of a
first item in a display view from a plurality of folders containing one or
more items, wherein the plurality of folders are associated with different
applications," as recited in claim 29. App. Br. 7 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues Moore "only discloses creating a list of selectable items to
include in a list, album, playlist or the like, without any indication that the
selectable items ... were selected from a plurality of folders associated with
2
Appeal2015-006093
Application 12/596,689
different applications" (App. Br. 7 (citing Moore il 28)) and "[ e Jach of
Moore's embodiments are limited to selecting items and folders associated
with only a single application" (App. Br. 8 (citing Moore i-f 32)).
Appellant cites paragraph 3 of Appellant's Specification as written
description support for the phrase "wherein the plurality of folders are
associated with different applications" in claim 29. App. Br. 4. Paragraph 3
of Appellant's Specification states that media items are often scattered
throughout different folders in users' devices such that music files, for
example, may be found in a "music" folder belonging to a music rendering
application or an "incoming mail" folder of an email application. See also
App. Br. 8 (arguing "the 'different applications' as recited by claim 29 can
include, for example, a music rendering application, email application, or
web browser application as disclosed in the present specification"). Further,
Appellant's Specification states that a person of ordinary skill would have
understood that different types of media files can require different kinds of
applications. Spec. i-f 32; see also Spec. i-f 42 (explaining that a user can
"navigate between folders containing different types of items and freely
select items, of the same type, to create playlists without first grouping items
of the same type in a specific folder").
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Moore discloses the disputed
limitation with its disclosures of an interface that allows users to navigate to
one or more folders and subfolders in various "storage locations" to create a
list of selectable items. Final Act. 2--4 (citing Moore i-fi-128-33, 39, 43) Ans.
2 (citing Moore i-fi-128, 32); see also Moore Fig. 1, i-fi-121-27 (describing
various applications stored in, e.g., system memory, removable non-volatile
memory, and network storage). Among other things, Moore describes
3
Appeal2015-006093
Application 12/596,689
navigation to folders and subfolders to select items such as photographs and
songs.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Moore's disclosures of
navigating to different folders in various storage locations to select files of
different types discloses the disputed limitation. Among other things,
Appellant's Specification evidences that a person of ordinary skill would
have understood Moore's disclosures of different types of media to disclose
different kinds of applications associated with the different media types.
Spec. i-f 43 (stating that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that
rendering different types of multimedia items can require different kinds of
applications suitable for the particular type of media).
Accordingly, having considered the Examiner's rejection of claim 29
in view of each of Appellant's arguments and the evidence of record, we
disagree with Appellant and agree with the Examiner that Moore discloses
each limitation of claim 29. We adopt as our own the Examiner's findings
and reasoning in the Final Rejection and the Examiner's Answer and sustain
the rejection of claim 29, as well as the rejections of claims 31-37, 39-42,
and 44--48, for which Appellant does not raise independent arguments
beyond those advanced for claim 29.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 29, 31-37, 39-42, and
44--48.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4