Ex Parte Rottler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

13629760 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 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.
13/629,760 09/28/2012 Benjamin Rottler QLXX.P0685US/11403326 1895
15757 7590 09/01/2017
Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
2200 Ross Avenue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
EXAMINER
WEBER, JOY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENJAMIN ROTTLER, PILAR STRUTIN-BELINOFF, and
GREG ARROYO
Appeal 2017-000667
Application 13/629,7601
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention concerns drag and drop search of user interface
(UI) objects in a computing device. A command is received in which a user
drags a UI object from an application and drops it into an area within the UI
that is assigned to a search function. In response, a search is performed
using the search function based on at least one metadata field associated
1 The real party in interest is QUALCOMM Incorporated. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-000667
Application 13/629,760
with the UI object, where the metadata fields used for the search are selected
based on an object type of the UI object. The results of the search are
displayed within the user interface. See Spec., Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A computing device for enabling drag and drop
object searches within a user interface (UI), the computing
device comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory and configured with
processor-executable instructions to:
receive a command by which a UI object currently
displayed in an application is dragged from the application and
dropped onto an area within the UI, which is outside of the
application, wherein the area is assigned to a search function
and data of metadata fields associated with the UI object is
transferred between the application and the search function
which is external to the application;
determine an object type assigned to the UI object using
data of a metadata field of the metadata fields associated with
the UI object;
select, based on the determined object type, at least one
metadata field of the metadata fields associated with the UI
object for providing data for a search using the search function,
wherein different metadata fields are selected for searches
associated with different object types;
perform the search using the search function using the
data from the selected at least one metadata field associated
with the UI object included in the data transferred between the
application and the search function;
and display results of the search within the UI.
2
Appeal 2017-000667
Application 13/629,760
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Robert et al. US 2008/0307343 A1 Dec. 11, 2008
(hereinafter “Robert”)
Chang et al. US 2009/0289913 Al Nov. 26, 2009
(hereinafter “Chang”)
Ganesh US 2010/0131881 Al May 27,2010
Sinha et al. US 2011/0047187 Al Feb. 24, 2011
Claims 1, 2, and 4—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ganesh and Sinha.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ganesh, Sinha, and Chang.
Claims 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ganesh, Sinha, and Robert.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Apr. 12, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct.
10, 2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sept. 9, 2016) for
their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Ganesh and Sinha teach or suggest
receiving a command by which a user interface object currently displayed in
an application is dragged from the application and dropped into an area
within the user interface, which is outside the application?
2. Does the combination of Ganesh and Sinha teach or suggest
selecting, based on a determined object type, at least one metadata field of
3
Appeal 2017-000667
Application 13/629,760
the metadata fields associated with the user interface object for providing
data for a search using the search function?
ANALYSIS
Claim Construction
Independent claim 1 recites “a processor . . . configured with
processor-executable instructions to: receive a command by which a UI
[user interface] object currently displayed in an application is dragged from
the application and dropped onto an area within the UI”; “determine an
object type assigned to the UI object using data of a metadata field of the
metadata fields associated with the UI object”; “select... at least one
metadata field of the metadata fields associated with the UI object”;
“perform the search using the search function using the data from the
selected at least one metadata field associated with the UI object”; and
“display results of the search within the UI.” Independent claim 10 recites
parallel limitations within the context of a “non-transitory machine-readable
storage medium encoded with instructions executable by a processor.”
Independent claim 13 recites parallel limitations within the context of a
“method for execution by a computing device.”
To determine whether the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims,
we must first construe the claim term “user interface (UI) object.”
Appellants’ Specification does not provide an explicit definition of the
term “user interface object.” Appellants do provide examples of user
interface objects at several locations. Appellants refer to “an email... a
contact... or a photo.” Spec. 112. “UI objects are not limited to discrete
files stored in a file system of computing device 100; rather, the UI objects
4
Appeal 2017-000667
Application 13/629,760
may be any visible components that make up a portion of the visual display
of an application.” M 121. “When the application is a contacts application
. . ., the UI objects may include individual contact records .... When the
application is an email application, the UI objects may include individual
emails .... Other suitable examples of UI objects will be apparent
depending on the particular type of application.” Id. 122. Example UI
objects are enumerated as “an image, video, email, contact, note, etc.” Id.
126.
Each of Appellants’ examples of a user interface object constitute data
stored on a computing device that forms the basis for a visual element of the
computing device’s user interface. Appellants’ claims make clear that such
visual elements may be dragged and dropped, using an unspecified
pointing/selecting device, within the user interface of the computing device.
Appellants’ claims also make clear that these user interface objects are
assigned an object type, and have metadata fields associated therewith. We
therefore construe the term “user interface object,” in accordance with those
examples, as data, stored on a computing device, that is assigned an object
type and has associated metadata fields that forms the basis for a visual
element of the computing device’s user interface.
Claims 1,2, and 4—15
Turning to the claim limitations requiring determining an object type
assigned to the UI object using data of a metadata field of the metadata
fields associated with the UI object, the Examiner finds that “Ganesh teaches
embodiments that provide an intuitive user interface used with a browser to
facilitate easy electronic search and selection of data via any network,
wherein searchable data (objects) can be of any type electronically
5
Appeal 2017-000667
Application 13/629,760
representable.” Ans. 2—3, citing Ganesh Tflf 30, 39. The Examiner further
finds that “Ganesh teaches that relevant information for the objects are
described in the object attributes, including the type of object.” Id. at 3,
citing Ganesh 139.
Ganesh discloses that “identifiable objects in the context of online
shopping are used as an example. Data or objects can be physical objects
such as merchandise, books in a library, etc., or representation of non­
physical objects such as customer support problems, legal case descriptions,
etc.” Ganesh 130. Whereas the claims call for “user interface objects,”
such as the “image, video, contact, note, etc.” discussed in our construction
of the term supra, the portions of Ganesh relied upon by the Examiner are
concerned with describing physical objects or concepts, such as
merchandise, books, customer support problems, or legal case descriptions.
Id. We agree with Appellants that “the objects referred to in Ganesh are not
the electronic data representations of the physical objects [or concepts] or
any user interface objects displayed by an application, but are instead the
underlying physical objects[,] which are then represented as ‘electronic
data.’” App. Br. 8.
Ganesh further discloses that “[t]he apparatus and method deal with
generic objects or concepts that are capable of representation as electronic
data .... Information about an object is primarily derived from machine-
understandable descriptions of the object.” Ganesh 139. It is clear from
this disclosure that the “object or concept” referred to here is not a user
interface object, but rather an actual physical object (or concept) that is
capable of being represented or described in a machine-understandable
fashion. Id.
6
Appeal 2017-000667
Application 13/629,760
The Examiner finds that Ganesh teaches determining an object type
assigned to the UI object using data of a metadata field associated with the
UI object. Final Act. 3, citing Ganesh 130, 38-40. We find that the
Examiner erred in so finding, for two reasons. First, as analyzed supra, we
find that Ganesh determines the type of physical object or concept, rather
than the type of user interface object. Second, Ganesh here discloses
representing physical objects, or concepts, as electronic data. The claim
requires “metadata,” however, which refers to “data about data,” rather than
“data about physical objects.” We agree with Appellants that there is
“nothing in Ganesh to teach or suggest determining the object type assigned
to a user interface object, whether using data of a metadata field associated
with the UI object or otherwise.” App. Br. 8.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the combination of
Ganesh and Sinha fails to teach all the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 4—15.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of these claims.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1. We have reviewed
Chang, and we find that under the Examiner’s mapping, Chang does not
remedy the deficiencies identified in Ganesh and Sinha with respect to
independent claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claim 3 over Ganesh, Sinha, and Chang, for the reasons expressed with
respect to the rejection of claim 1, supra.
Claims 16-18
Claim 16 depends from independent claim 1; claim 17 depends from
independent claim 10; and claim 18 depends from independent claim 13.
7
Appeal 2017-000667
Application 13/629,760
We have reviewed Robert, and we find that Robert does not remedy the
deficiencies identified in Ganesh and Sinha with respect to independent
claims 1, 10, and 13.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 16—18
over Ganesh, Sinha, and Robert for the same reasons expressed with respect
to parent claims 1,10, and 13, supra.
CONCLUSION
1. The combination of Ganesh and Sinha does not teach or suggest
receiving a command by which a user interface object currently displayed in
an application is dragged from the application and dropped into an area
within the user interface, which is outside the application.
2. The combination of Ganesh and Sinha does not teach or suggest
selecting, based on a determined object type, at least one metadata field of
the metadata fields associated with the user interface object for providing
data for a search using the search function.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
8