Ex Parte Partanen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

10818444 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/818,444 04/05/2004 Minna Partanen 944-005.030 3427
10945 7590 02/27/2013
NOKIA CORPORATION
c/o Ware, Fressola, Maguire & Barber LLP
Building Five, Bradford Green
755 Main Street, PO Box 224
Monroe, CT 06468
EXAMINER
TANK, ANDREW L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MINNA PARTANEN
____________________

Appeal 2010-009409
Application 10/818,444
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES B. ARPIN, and TRENTON A. WARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-10, 15-20, 25, 26, and 28. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2010-009409
Application 10/818,444
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to providing an animated
user-interface on an electronic device, such as a mobile phone. See
Abstract. Claim 10 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain
disputed limitations emphasized:
10. A method comprising:
displaying a plurality of menu items in a display screen
of an electronic device at a plurality of screen sections of the
display screen;
displaying in the display screen a plurality of graphical
representations at a plurality of fixed locations, each graphical
representation associated with one of the menu items, wherein
the fixed location of said each graphical representation is
adjacent to and separate from the screen section of said
associated menu item, wherein at least one of the displayed
menu items is selectable by highlighting the screen section at
which the selected menu item is located;
displaying in a designated area of the display screen,
responsive to said highlighting, a message indicative of
information related to the selected menu item in a moving
pattern such that only a part of the message is displayed at a
time in a time sequence when the message is longer than the
designated area; and
animating the graphical representation associated with
the selected menu item at least when the message is displayed
in the moving pattern.

THE REJECTIONS
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 2-3 and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Samsung® SGH-S105 mobile telephone,
available during the fourth quarter of 2002 from T-Mobile® as evidenced by
Cnet.com (http://reviews.cnet.com/4505-6454 7- 20687160.html) and
Mobiledia.com (http://www.mobiledia.com/phones/date/q4-2002.html),
(published November 26, 2002) [hereinafter Samsung SGH-S105]; the
Appeal 2010-009409
Application 10/818,444
3
Samsung SGH-S105 User Guide, Part No. GH68-03087 A Rev 1.1,
available from http://www.samsungtelecom.com/Qdf/s105.pdf, [hereinafter
User Guide]; and Matthews (US 2005/0091609 A1; published April 28,
2005; filed October 23, 2003). Ans. 3-8.1
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 15-20, 25-26, and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Samsung® SGH-S105, the User
Guide, and Klein (US 6,021,312; issued Feb. 1, 2000). Ans. 8-12.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SAMSUNG SGH-S105, USER
GUIDE, AND MATTHEWS
Claim 10
The Examiner finds that Samsung SGH-S105 and User Guide
discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 except “animating the graphical
representation associated with the selected menu item at least when the
message is displayed in the moving pattern.” Ans. 5-6. The Examiner cites
Matthews, in combination with the User Guide, as suggesting this limitation
in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Id.
First, Appellant argues that the User Guide does not disclose or
suggest displaying a message on the display screen responsive to the
selection of a menu name or item, wherein, when the message is too long, it
is displayed in a moving pattern. App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 23-25.
Furthermore, Appellant argues that Matthews does not disclose or suggest
animating the icons in a screen area where each of icons is associated with
one menu name, animating an icon at least when the message is displayed in

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.)
filed December 22, 2009, (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed
April 1, 2010, and (3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed June 4, 2010.
Appeal 2010-009409
Application 10/818,444
4
a moving pattern, or displaying a message in a designated area on the
display screen responsive to highlighting. App. Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 23-25.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 by finding
that the cited references collectively would have taught or suggested
displaying a message on the display screen responsive to the selection of a
menu name or item, wherein, when the message is too long, it is displayed in
a moving pattern and animating the graphical representation associated with
the selected menu item at least when the message is displayed in the moving
pattern?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 10. Appellant makes three arguments regarding the
Examiner’s reliance upon Samsung SGH-S105, User Guide, and Matthews,
and we address Appellant’s arguments seriatim.
First, Appellant argues that the User Guide does not disclose or
suggest displaying a message on the display screen responsive to the
selection of a menu name or item, wherein, when the message is too long, it
is displayed in a moving pattern. App. Br. 22. Contrary to Appellant’s
arguments, the Examiner finds that the User Guide teaches displaying a
message indicative of the information related to the selected menu item on a
designated area of the display screen in response to highlighting. Ans. 5. As
an example, the Examiner cites the depiction of the selection of the menu
item “Infrared Activity” (Ans. 5), as shown in the image from Step 3 of the
User Guide reproduced below:
Appeal 2010-009409
Application 10/818,444
5

Step 3 of the User Guide shows an image of the user interface on
the screen of the Samsung phone.

User Guide, 32. As shown in the image above, the User Guide teaches
displaying a message on the display screen responsive to the selection of one
of the menu items. Ans. 5 (citing User Guide, 32). Furthermore, as found
by the Examiner, the User Guide teaches that “[i]f the menu name is too
long for display, it is scrolled when highlighted.” Ans. 5 (citing User Guide,
32). We are, therefore, not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
determination that the User Guide teaches a “moving pattern such that only a
part of the message is displayed at a time in a time sequence when the
message is longer than the designated area,” as recited in claim 10, because
it teaches a scrolling of text. See User Guide, 32.
Second, Appellant argues that Matthews does not disclose or suggest
animating the icons in a screen area where each of the icons is associated
with one menu name. App. Br. 14. The Examiner finds that Matthews
teaches the animation of an icon displayed at a fixed location of the display
Appeal 2010-009409
Application 10/818,444
6
area when the associated menu item is selected. Ans. 6 (citing Matthews,
¶¶ [0045, 47]). Specifically, Matthews teaches a user interface that provides
an animated icon 510. Matthews, ¶¶ [0045, 47]. In particular, Matthews
teaches that, in one embodiment, “animated icon 510 is contextually related
to the menu item ‘Contacts’ 506 in that [icon 510] depicts something that
represents in some way the function that will be called if the menu item is
selected.” Matthews, ¶ [0042]. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error
in the Examiner’s determination that Matthews teaches animating the icons
in a screen area where each of the icons is associated with one menu name.
Third, Appellant argues that Matthews does not disclose or suggest
animating an icon at least when the message is displayed in a moving pattern
or displaying a message in a designated area on the display screen
responsive to the highlighting. App. Br. 23. The Examiner does not rely
upon Matthews as teaching the display of a message in a moving pattern, but
relies upon Matthews solely for its teachings regarding an animated icon
according to a selected menu item. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to animate the
icon, in view of Matthews, of the menu method of the Samsung SGH-S105,
as described by the User Guide, to yield the predictable result of animating a
graphical representation associated with the selected menu item. Ans. 6.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings, as both
disclosures relate to user interface display and one of skill in the art would
have a reason to combine the references to further convey information to the
user, as determined by the Examiner. Ans. 6.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 10.

Appeal 2010-009409
Application 10/818,444
7
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6
Appellant argues that the combination of Samsung SGH-S105, User
Guide, and Matthews fails to render claim 2 obvious because “a menu name
is not the same as a message displayed responsive to highlighting of a screen
section for selecting the menu item.” App. Br. 25. Additionally, Appellant
makes similar arguments with respect to claims 3, 5, and 6. App. Br. 25-26.
The Examiner finds that the User Guide teaches that, when menu
names are highlighted, the full messages is scrolled across the designated
area, i.e. “Infrared Activate” or “Greeting Message” is scrolled respectively.
Ans. 13 (quoting User Guide, 32). Furthermore, the Examiner finds that,
under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitation of “a
message indicative of information related to the selected menu item” may
include the full text for a menu item because it is information related to the
menu item. Ans. 13. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
proposition that the User Guide teaches or suggests scrolling information
related to the selected menu item. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Claim 7
Appellant argues that the combination of Samsung SGH-S105, User
Guide, and Matthews fails to teach or suggest the further limitation set forth
in claim 7 that the designated area is different from the screen section at
which the selected menu item is located. App. Br. 26. Specifically,
Appellant argues that the User Guide disclosure regarding the display of a
“tooltip” does not teach Appellant’s designated area separate from the
selected menu item. App. Br. 26-27. We disagree.
Appeal 2010-009409
Application 10/818,444
8
As an example, the Examiner cites the depiction of the selection of the
menu item “Language” (Ans. 14), as shown in the figure from Step 4 of the
User Guide reproduced below:

Step 4 of the User Guide shows an image of the user interface on
the screen of the Samsung phone.

User Guide, 33. As shown in the image above from the User Guide, when
the user selects the menu item “Language,” a tooltip displaying “English”
may be displayed above the highlighted menu item “Language.” Ans. 16
(User Guide, 33). The Examiner finds that this display of the tooltip
“English,” teaches displaying information related to a menu item in a
designated area different from the screen section at which the selected menu
item is located. Ans. 16. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s position and sustain the rejection of claim 7.

Appeal 2010-009409
Application 10/818,444
9
Claims 8 and 9
Appellant argues that the combination of Samsung SGH-S105, User
Guide, and Matthews fails to teach or suggest the further limitation, set forth
in claims 8 and 9, that the message is indicative of updated information to
show current or future events. App. Br. 27. The Examiner finds, however,
the User Guide discloses that the message displayed may be a Calendar, To-
Do-List, Time & Date, and Alarm, each of which is a message indicative of
current or future events. Ans. 16. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s position that displaying information related to Calendar, To-Do-
List, Time & Date, and Alarm, teaches displaying information indicative of
current or future events. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 8 and 9.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SAMSUNG SGH-S105,
USER GUIDE, MATTHEWS, AND KLEIN
The Examiner acknowledges that Samsung SGH-S105 and User
Guide in combination with Matthews fails to demonstrate that the message is
displayed in a moving pattern even if the message is shorter than or equal to
the designated area, as required by claims 26 and 28, and the Examiner cites
Klein as teaching this feature. Ans. 10-11. Appellant argues that the
combination of Klein with Samsung SGH-S105, User Guide and Matthews
would yield predictable results that are different from the recited limitation
of displaying the message in a moving pattern if the message is too long.
App. Br. 24-25.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26 and 28 by
finding that the cited references collectively teach or suggest that the
Appeal 2010-009409
Application 10/818,444
10
message is displayed in the moving pattern even if the message is shorter
than or equal to the designated area?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 26 and 28. The Examiner finds that Klein discloses a
radio pager device capable of continuous horizontal scrolling state that is
controlled by the user, such that regardless of the message length, the user
has control over the scrolling speed. Ans. 11 (citing Klein, Abstract, ll. 10-
14; col. 5, ll. 23-55). Accordingly, the Examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to modify the scrolling menu structure of the Samsung SGH-
S105, as described in the User Guide and Matthews in view of the scrolling
of smaller messages in Klein. Ans. 11.
Appellant fails to provide any specific arguments as to why the
predictable results of the combination of the User Guide, Matthews, and
Klein would be “different from the claimed invention.” App. Br. 24. Thus,
we find that the Examiner’s findings with respect to the teachings of
scrolling messaging on a radio pager device in Klein are undisputed.
Furthermore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine
Klein’s teaching regarding scrolling of smaller messages with the teaching
of the message display and animation in Samsung SGH-S105, User Guide,
and Matthews. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)
(“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.”). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 26 and 28 and of dependent claims 19 and 20, not
separately argued.
Appeal 2010-009409
Application 10/818,444
11
Claims 15-18 and 25
For the reasons noted previously regarding claims 2, 3, and 5, we
likewise are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 15-18 and 25 over Samsung® SGH-S105, the User Guide, and Klein.

ORDER
The Examiners’ decision rejecting claims 2, 3, 5-10, 15-20, 25, 26,
and 28 under § 103 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk