Ex Parte Rainisto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

12872606 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
12/872,606 08/31/2010 Roope Aleksi RAINISTO 042933/391214 3832
10949 7590
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
EXAMINER
TUNG, KEE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROOPE ALEKSI, JENNI ROMPPAINEN, and
HANNELE PIITULAINEN
Appeal 2015-004418
Application 12/872,606
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—23, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004418
Application 12/872,606
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to “user interface technology
and, more particularly, relate[s] to methods and apparatuses for providing an
enhanced wallpaper display.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, which is illustrative,
reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining a display position for each of at least one
graphic item;
determining, for each respective candidate image of at
least one candidate image, locations of any visually significant
regions in the respective candidate image, wherein the at least
one candidate image is separate from the at least one graphic
item;
identifying, by image determination circuitry, at least one
suitable wallpaper image of the at least one candidate image at
least in part by comparing the determined display positions of the
at least one graphic item to the determined locations of the
visually significant regions of the at least one candidate image to
determine whether at least a portion of at least one of the
determined display positions of the at least one graphic item
overlaps with at least a portion of at least one of the visually
significant regions of the at least one candidate image; and
receiving an indication of selection of one of the a least
one suitable wallpaper image for use as a wallpaper image.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
References
Kim
Furuichi
US 2009/0103144 A1
US 2009/0225005 A1
Apr. 23, 2009
Sept. 10, 2009
Oct. 27, 2009
Sept. 30, 2010
Widdowson et al. US 7,609,847 B2
Geppert et al. US 2010/0251124 Al
2
Appeal 2015-004418
Application 12/872,606
Sidman US 2010/0281364 A1 Nov. 4, 2010
Alberth et al. US 2011/0148917 A1 June 23, 2011
Rejections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Widdowson, Kim,
and Alberth. Final Act. 8—15.
Claims 2, 8, 10, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Widdowson, Kim, Alberth, and
Geppert. Final Act. 15—17.
Claims 3,11, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Widdowson, Kim, Alberth, and
Sidman. Final Act. 17—19.
Claims 4, 6, 12, 14, 17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Widdowson, Kim,
Alberth, and Furuichi. Final Act. 19—23.
ANALYSIS
Appellants do not substantively argue the claims separately, but
instead rely on the same arguments for all claims. See App. Br. 9-15; Reply
Br. 1—3. We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim.
Remaining claims 2—23 stand or fall together with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv),
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Widdowson, Kim, and Alberth teaches or suggests
3
Appeal 2015-004418
Application 12/872,606
identifying, by image determination circuitry, at least one
suitable wallpaper image of the at least one candidate image at
least in part by comparing the determined display positions of the
at least one graphic item to the determined locations of the
visually significant regions of the at least one candidate image to
determine whether at least a portion of at least one of the
determined display positions of the at least one graphic item
overlaps with at least a portion of at least one of the visually
significant regions of the at least one candidate image,
as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend the combination of Widdowson, Kim, and Alberth
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 12—14; Reply
Br. 2—3. According to Appellants, “Kim describes a user selecting an area
of a display in various widgets and a desired wallpaper image to be used
accordingly in each widget. Kim describes the user manually choosing an
image to use as wallpaper, or in some instances a controller setting a default
image.” App. Br. 12—13 (citing Kim 133); see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants
argue Kim, therefore, does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
App. Br. 13. Appellants further contend Albert does not teach or suggest the
disputed limitation but, instead, “suggests moving or repositioning icons
placed over a background image.” App. Br. 13.
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. Nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re
Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the
Examiner finds Kim teaches or suggests “identifying, by image
determination circuitry, at least one suitable wallpaper image of the at least
one candidate image at least in part by comparing the determined display
positions of the at least one graphic item.” Ans. 8—11 (citing Kim || 33, 54,
4
Appeal 2015-004418
Application 12/872,606
59; Figs. 3, 4). The Examiner next finds Alberth teaches or suggests
“determine whether at least a portion of at least one of the determined
display positions of the at least one graphic item overlaps with at least a
portion of at least one of the visually significant regions of the at least one
candidate image.” Ans. 11—12 (citing Alberth 140). Based on these
findings, the Examiner concludes the combined teachings of the references
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Ans. 12. Appellants’contentions
do not persuasively address the combined teachings of the references and,
therefore, are unpersuasive of error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by combining Widdowson, Kim, and
Alberth?
Appellants contend the combination of Widdowson, Kim, and Alberth
is improper. App. Br. 9—12; Reply Br. 1—2. More specifically, Appellants
contend the combination of Kim with Widdowson and/or Alberth is
improper because “Kim does not aim to solve any of the problems addressed
by embodiments of the claims” and “Kim does not aim to solve any of the
problems addressed by Widdowson and/or Alberth.” App. Br. 10-11.
Appellants further contend the combination is improper because “the
Examiner’s statement regarding the combination lacks any reasonable basis”
and “[tjhere is no known problem that would lead to the result of combining
Kim, Widdowson and/or Alberth in such a way as to arrive at the features of
the claims.” App. Br. 11. Appellants argue “[t]he Examiner fails to address
how the user input to create a wall paper image, as described in Kim, relates
to a method, computer program product, and/or apparatus as claimed, for
5
Appeal 2015-004418
Application 12/872,606
determining visually significant areas of an image and/or identifying an
appropriate wallpaper image of a set of candidate images.” Reply Br. 2.
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. A reference
qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only
when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA
Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2011). “Two separate
tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the
same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; and (2) if the
reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved.” Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348.
Under the heading “TECHNOLOGY FIELD,” Appellants’
Specification provides “[ejxample embodiments of the present invention
relate generally to user interface technology and, more particularly, relate to
methods and apparatuses for providing an enhanced wallpaper display.”
Spec. 11; Title. Under the heading “BRIEF SUMMARY,” the Specification
provides “[mjethods, apparatuses, and computer program products are
herein provided for enhancing wallpaper display.” Spec. 14. As such, we
find the field of endeavor includes methods, apparatuses, and computer
program products for enhancing wallpaper display.
Kim is directed to an image forming apparatus for setting a wallpaper.
Kim, Abstract. Kim teaches that the image forming apparatus includes “a
user interface (UI) for wallpaper editing of each program, and changing and
displaying a wallpaper of a respective program according to items selected
from the UI.” Id. Kim teaches that the image forming apparatus enables “a
6
Appeal 2015-004418
Application 12/872,606
user-desired wallpaper [to be] applied to each widget program used
according to a user’s purpose.” Id. As such, Kim is within the same field of
endeavor and, therefore, analogous prior art. Appellants do not
substantively dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding Widdowson and
Alberth being analogous prior art. See App. Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 1—2.
We are also not persuaded that the Examiner’s motivation for the
combination was insufficient. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, “[i]n
determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither
the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.”
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Instead, a
motivation to combine can be found in “any need or problem known in the
field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. “[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. The Examiner finds:
[I]t would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in
the art modify determining object layouts in (as taught by
Widdowson) creating a wallpaper out of an image and displaying
that wallpaper (as taught by Kim) by further comparing the
overlaid icons with the background image (as taught by Alberth)
so that the user is able to view the full image with the high
importance areas.
Final Act. 10. The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled
artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 421. Appellants do not
present evidence persuasive to show that the resulting arrangement was
7
Appeal 2015-004418
Application 12/872,606
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR,
550 U.S. at 418—19). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 and claims 2—23 which fall with claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
8