Ex Parte Paila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

12425904 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/425,904 04/17/2009
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
05/31/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Toni Paila
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.
P2453USOO 3666
EXAMINER
DURKIN, JAMES T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TONI P AILA and ARI ANTERO AARNIO
Appeal2014-008419
Application 12/425,904
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008419
Application 12/425,904
STATE~v1ENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The invention relates to providing information on the capability of
certain applications in a computing environment, such as widgets, to share
functionality with each other (Spec. i-fi-124, 25, 28). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
initiating presentation of two or more icons representing
two or more widgets, wherein the two or more widgets that are
presented include a data component that displays a first
indication representing widgets that can be combined together
and a second different indication representing widgets that
cannot be combined together, and the data component is
displayed irrespective of a user selecting or moving any widget;
detecting an input signal in response to a user selecting the
two or more widgets; and
determining a common action for an application to the
selected widgets based on the input signal and the data
component corresponding to each of the selected widgets,
wherein the first indication indicates different levels, or
degrees of attraction and the second different indication indicates
different levels, or degrees of repulsion.
2
Appeal2014-008419
Application 12/425,904
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kagawa
Forstall
Kim
Caunter
US 2007/0027855 Al Feb. 1, 2007
US 2007/0101291 Al May 3, 2007
US 2007/0229471 Al Oct. 4, 2007
US 2009/0249359 Al Oct. 1, 2009
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forstall, Caunter, and Kagawa.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forstall, Caunter, Kagawa, and Kim.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Kagawa fails to teach "the first indication
indicates different levels, or degrees of attraction and the second different
indication indicates different levels, or degrees of repulsion," as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 5-7). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
The Examiner cites the following disclosure in Forstall (Ans. 3):
[W]idgets that are linked (or that are capable of being linked)
have a gravitational or magnetic attraction or repulsion to each
other. . . . A visual indication of the strength of a link (or the
potential to link) can be displayed by changing one or more
properties of the widgets, such as the color of the widgets or the
distance between widgets. For example, red widgets could
indicate a strong link (or potential to link) and green widgets
could indicate a weak link (or potential to link). Also, a shorter
distance between linked widgets in a dashboard layer or user
3
Appeal2014-008419
Application 12/425,904
interface could indicate a stronger link (or potential to link) than
widgets that are separated by a greater distance.
(Forstall, i-f 86). Here, we find Forstall discloses using two different
indications---color and distance-to show the potential of widgets to link
with each other. Further, we find Forstall's teaching that "widgets ... have
a gravitational or magnetic attraction or repulsion to each other," in
combination with Forstall's use of color and distance as visual indications of
link potential (id.), would have suggested that either the color or distance
indication could be used to show widgets that have an attraction or repulsion
to each other, and the degree of that attraction or repulsion. For example,
based on Forstall's teaching (see id.), one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood color could be used to show the degree of attraction
between two widgets-red would indicate a strong degree and green would
indicate a weak degree-and distance could be used to show the degree of
repulsion between two widgets-the further the distance between widgets,
the stronger the degree of repulsion.
We note that claim 1 does not require the first and second indications
to be displayed at the same time for the same widgets. Rather, claim 1
merely requires a data component that can display two different indications,
one indicating a degree of attraction and one indicating a degree of
repulsion. F orstall discloses two different indications and suggests either
indication could indicate a degree of attraction or a degree of repulsion, as
already discussed.
As we find the portion of Forstall cited by the Examiner would have
suggested the disputed limitations, we need not rely on Kagawa, which we
find to be cumulative evidence of obviousness. See In re Bush, 296 F .2d
4
Appeal2014-008419
Application 12/425,904
491, 496 (CCPA 1961) ("[T]he answer specified a rejection on [the prima1y
reference] in view of [an additional reference] and if the board found it
unnecessary to rely on [the additional reference] in sustaining that
rejection ... that does not amount to rejection on a new ground.").
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2-13 not specifically argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13 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
5