Ex Parte Trotta et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201713036655 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/036,655 02/28/2011 Nicholas Trotta SONY-48200 5365 102824 7590 11/30/2017 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS, LLP 162 N. WOLFE ROAD SUNNYVALE, CA 94086 EXAMINER FIBBI, CHRISTOPHER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2017 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 NICHOLAS TROTTA, GEORGE ALFRED ARRIOLA, and VINCE NAKAYAMA ____________ Appeal 2017-005681 Application 13/036,655 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–23, which represent all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to coherent optical communication detection within an optical communication system. Spec. ¶ 5. 1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed April 5, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Specification filed February 28, 2011 (“Spec.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 18, 2016 (“Ans.”) and the Final Rejection mailed February 23, 2016 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2017-005681 Application 13/036,655 2 Claims 1 and 23 are illustrative of the claims at issue and are reproduced below: 1. A method for displaying a user interface by a device to present a plurality of media titles, the method comprising: displaying, by the device, a user interface including a plurality of graphical elements, wherein each graphical element is associated with a media title and assigned a focus state; assigning one of the graphical elements with a selected focus state, wherein the graphical element is displayed to include a glow accent; detecting a user command, by the device, to adjust the display of the user interface; and adjusting the display of the user interface to initiate scrolling of the graphical elements based on the user command, wherein adjusting the display relates to speed scrolling and the display of the graphical elements is transitioned continuously to present the graphical elements at an increased rate and for continuous motion across the user interface based on the user command, wherein adjusting the display relates to group scrolling when a user continues to activate a directional button until release of the direction button is detected, wherein group scrolling includes adjusting the focus of a next category, further wherein group scrolling and speed scrolling are applied together, and wherein the selected focus state and at least one focus state of the graphical elements is updated based on the scrolling. 23. A device, comprising: a display; a memory; and a processor coupled to the display, and memory, the processor configured to: Appeal 2017-005681 Application 13/036,655 3 display a user interface including a plurality of graphical elements, wherein each graphical element is associated with a media title and assigned a focus state, wherein the user interface includes a plurality of icons, wherein each icon is selectable as a source of media content and the plurality of icons are based on socially driven recommendations; assign one of the graphical elements with a selected focus state, wherein the graphical element is displayed to include a glow accent and a spotlight effect; detect a user command to adjust the display of the user interface; and adjust the display of the user interface to initiate scrolling of the graphical elements based on the user command, wherein adjusting the display relates to speed scrolling and the display of the graphical elements is transitioned continuously to present the graphical elements at an increased rate and for continuous motion across the user interface based on the user command, wherein adjusting the display relates to group scrolling when a user repeatedly activates a directional button, wherein group scrolling includes adjusting the focus of a next category, further wherein group scrolling and speed scrolling are applied together, further wherein group scrolling continues until group scrolling times out, and wherein the selected focus state and at least one focus state of the graphical elements is updated based on the scrolling. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5–14, and 16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brodersen et al. (US 2008/0122870 A1, published May 29, 2008), Pixley et al. (US 2009/0100373 A1, published Apr. 16, 2009) and Randall (US 7,293,244 B2, issued Nov. 6, 2007). Final Act. 3–14. Appeal 2017-005681 Application 13/036,655 4 The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brodersen, Pixley, Randall, and Michaels (US 2007/0124699 A1, published May 31, 2007). Final Act. 14–16. The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brodersen, Pixley, and Anwar (US 2006/0271870 A1, published Nov. 30, 2006). Final Act. 16–19. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s obviousness rejections, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. Appellants do not proffer sufficient argument or evidence for us to find error in the Examiner’s findings. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Final Action and Answer. Appellants argue Brodersen fails to teach “the user interface includes a plurality of icons, wherein each icon is selectable as a source of media content,” as recited in claim 23. Br. 7. The Examiner finds Brodersen teaches each graphical element is associated with a media title and assigned a focus state. Ans. 2–3 (citing Brodersen ¶ 142, Fig. 27 (“interface environment 760 can include a plurality of content abstractions . . . highlight indicator 324 highlights a content abstraction, e.g., content abstraction 764, eligible for selection”)). We agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Figure 27 of Brodersen depicts a plurality of selectable content abstractions (765–783), at least one of which Appeal 2017-005681 Application 13/036,655 5 is focused by the highlight indicator (324). Thus, we agree that Brodersen teaches this limitation. Appellants also argue the content being scrolled through in Pixley is merely dummy data, and not the data the user is attempting to scroll through. Br. 7. However, as the Examiner finds, while Pixley’s data is referred to “dummy data,” it is described as actual content from the user interface. Ans. 3 (citing Pixley ¶¶ 53, 55). For example, in Figure 7 of Pixley, song title 702 is displayed showing the user how far he or she has scrolled. Id. at 4. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the fast scrolled dummy data is content representative of the actual graphical content of the current interface. Id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Pixley teaches “adjusting the display relates to speed scrolling and the display of the graphical elements is transitioned continuously to present the graphical elements at an increased rate and for continuous motion across the user interface based on the user command,” as recited in claim 1. Lastly, Appellants generally allege that there is nothing in Randall that teaches group scrolling includes adjusting the focus of a next category or that group scrolling and speed scrolling are applied together. Br. 9. The Examiner finds Randall teaches these limitations, for example in Figure 3. Ans. 6 (citing Randall, 2:30–50, 3:40–47, 4:9–11, Fig. 3). We agree that one of skill in the art would have recognized that Randall teaches that the speed of scrolling may vary, that the groupings are the alphabetical letter that the plurality of entries begin with, and the focus is changed to the user’s desired entry when scrolling ends. Id. Thus, we agree that Randall teaches group Appeal 2017-005681 Application 13/036,655 6 scrolling includes adjusting the focus of a next category and that group scrolling and speed scrolling are applied together. Therefore, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 12, and dependent claims 2–11 and 13–22, for which Appellants present the same or substantially the same arguments as claim 1. With respect to claim 23, Appellants argue that “there is nothing in Anwar specifically regarding wherein group scrolling continues until group scrolling times out.” Br. 15. We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Anwar teaches that its navigation control module may change from a continuous navigation state to a stopped state after a certain period of time has elapsed with no navigational input. Ans. 8–9 (citing Anwar ¶ 19). Thus, Anwar teaches “group scrolling continues until group scrolling times out,” as recited in claim 23. Appellants generally argue, without further explanation, that Anwar does not teach group scrolling and speed scrolling are applied together. Br. 15. However, as the Examiner explains, Anwar teaches group scrolling and teaches that the velocity of motion increases or decreases, thereby accelerating or decorating the navigation of content. Final Act. 17–18 (citing Anwar ¶ 49). The Examiner’s finding is reasonable and supported by evidence drawn from the record, and we find no reversible error. Therefore, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 23. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–23 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation