Ex Parte Vainio et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201813910753 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/910,753 06/05/2013 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 06/01/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Janne Marko Vainio 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. P3730US01 4685 EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2018 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 JANNE MARKOV AINIO and JANNE PETTER! BERGMAN Appeal2017-005674 Application 13/910,753 1 Technology Center 2100 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). WeAFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation. App. Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed July 19, 2016; Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed February 17, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed December 19, 2016; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed February 19, 2016; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed June 5, 2013. Appeal2017-005674 Application 13/910,753 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to a "method and apparatus for fluid graphical user interface [GUI]." Title (capitalization altered); Abstract. According to Appellants, "[t]he GUI presents data and applications as 'objects' that are presented in a fluid manner as flowing across the display so as to provide the user with a novel manner in which to access and utilize the data and applications." Spec. i-f 33. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method comprising: causing, at least in part, display of selectable objects on a graphical user interface, wherein each of the selectable objects corresponds to data or an application accessible via the graphical user interface; detecting a touch gesture on the graphical user interface; causing, at least in part, display of the selectable objects in motion travelling across the graphical user interface responsive to the detected touch gesture, wherein the selectable objects are displayed based on a category of the selectable object or context dependent data; allowing user selection and manipulation of the selectable objects displayed on the graphical user interface; and allowing user manipulation to transform one or more of the selectable objects into a source for content related to the transformed one or more selectable objects, wherein the source for content starts producing the content to the flow, wherein the selectable objects are caused to be displayed in motion by appearing at a first respective side of the graphical user interface, travelling across the graphical user interface, and then disappearing at a second respective side of the graphical user interface. App. Br. 3 (Claims App'x). 2 Appeal2017-005674 Application 13/910,753 REJECTIONS 3 & REFERENCES (1) Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16, 17, 19 and 204 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2010/0306650 Al; published Dec. 2, 2010; "Oh") and Bederson et al. (US 2010/0023871 Al; published Jan. 28, 2010; "Bederson"). Ans. 3-9. (2) Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oh, Bederson, and Fujita et al. (US 2002/0180808 Al; published Dec. 5, 2002; "Fujita"). Final Act. 9-10. ISSUES Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issues on appeal are: ( 1) whether the cited prior art teaches or suggests the disputed limitation: 3 We note that the Examiner has objected to: (1) the Specification as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, and (2) claim 16 as containing informalities. Ans. 2-3. Appellants do not present any argument directed to these objections. Regardless, these objections are not appealable and we need not consider these objections on appeal. 4 Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 10-14, 16, 17, and 20 were originally rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Oh. Final Act. 4--7. Claims 8 and 18 were rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oh and Fujita; and claims 9 and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oh and Bederson. Final Act. 8- 10. In response to Appellants' Appeal Brief, the Examiner newly rejected claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oh and Bederson. Ans. 3-9. Under MPEP § 1207.03 and 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(b), Appellants did not petition under 37 C.F .R. § 1.181 (a) for designation as new ground of rejection; instead, Appellants presented arguments in the Reply Brief directed to the Examiner's new position. Reply Br. 1-3. We therefore address the Examiner's new position based on Oh and Bederson for the disputed limitation, and confine our discussion principally to these references. 3 Appeal2017-005674 Application 13/910,753 "allowing user manipulation to transform one or more of the selectable objects into a source for content related to the transformed one or more selectable objects, wherein the source for content starts producing the content to the flow," as recited in claims 1 and 11; and (2) whether the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. ANALYSIS Claim 1 With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Oh teaches a graphical user interface (GUI) in a touch device where menu items ("objects") displayed on a display screen may move from a first (source) position to a second (destination) position where a user's touch is generated according to assigned priorities. Ans. 3 (citing Oh Figures 13-14); see also Oh i-fi-13, 18. In particular, the Examiner finds Oh teaches most of the claim limitations, including: (1) "causing, at least in part, display of selectable objects on a graphical user interface, wherein each of the selectable objects corresponds to data or an application accessible via the graphical user interface;" (see Oh i-fi-166, 137, 173, Figs. 4--12); (2) "detecting a touch gesture on the graphical user interface;" (see Oh i-f 123, Fig. 3); (3)"causing, at least in part, display of the selectable objects in motion travelling across the graphical user interface responsive to the detected touch gesture, wherein the selectable objects are displayed based on a category of the selectable object or context dependent data;" (see Oh i-fi-f 123-125, Figs. 4--12); 4 Appeal2017-005674 Application 13/910,753 ( 4) "allowing user selection and manipulation of the selectable objects displayed on the graphical user interface;" (see Oh i-fi-166, 148); and ( 5) "allowing user manipulation to transform one or more of the selectable objects into a source for content related to the transformed one or more selectable objects, wherein the source for content starts producing the content to the flow," (see Oh i-fi-f 18, 27, 40, 76, 80, Figs. 8-9); ( 6) "wherein the selectable objects are caused to be displayed in motion by appearing at a first respective side of the graphical user interface, travelling across the graphical user interface," (see Oh i-fi-124, 110, Figs. 5, 11 ). Ans. 3---6. The Examiner finds Oh teaches the flow of menu items ("objects") on a display screen from a first (source) position to a second (destination) position, but does not teach selected objects "disappearing at second respective side of the graphical user interface [GUI]." Ans. 6. To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on Bederson's disclosure of "an animated flow of selected content" ("objects") on the same GUI "so that the information items appear to move from one side of the screen to the other and to disappear/reappear at the sides of the screen" in a water-like motion and "float" across the screen. Ans. 6 (citing Bederson i-f 18). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Bederson. Instead, Appellants argue "Oh merely appears to disclose enabling use of the alleged objects as a shortcut for executing an application, not for producing content to a flow" and, as such, does not teach the disputed limitation: "allowing user manipulation to transform one or more of the selectable objects into a source for content related to the transformed 5 Appeal2017-005674 Application 13/910,753 one or more selectable objects, wherein the source for content starts producing the content to the flow," as recited in Appellants' claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. Appellants also argue because "Oh appears to disclose displaying menu items, not hiding them" and "Bederson discloses obscuring portions of informational flows for the purpose of providing a substantial amount of information in a limited space," "[t]here is no reason to obscure the menu or shortcut items of Oh in the manner disclosed by Bederson because Oh' s menu items are not the same as informational flows and don't necessarily suffer from the same problems in delivery and display." Reply Br. 2-3. According to Appellants, "there would be no reason to so, and that such a modification would overcomplicate Oh and make the disclosed tapping, dragging, and grouping functionality disclosed by Oh rather cumbersome and unwieldy." App. Br. 6. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The term "objects" is described by Appellants' Specification as: "any piece of data (e.g., contact information, pictures, videos, movies, music, messages, files, calendar entries, web links, game data, electronic books, television channels and/or programs, radio broadcasting channels and/or programs, media streams, point of interest (POI) information, data (e.g., regarding various products for sale online, such data being used to identify the 6 Appeal2017-005674 Application 13/910,753 products during an online shopping search, etc.), etc. or any combination thereof) or application (contact database, calendar, mapping function, clock, control panel or tools for user customizable settings, media player, games, web browser, camera, etc., or any combination thereof) or groups containing data and/or application objects that are accessible by the user utilizing the GUI." Spec. i-f 34. The term "source" is described by Appellants' Specification as: a category designation that is used to generate a flow of objects within that category on the GUI. The source can be a labeled or non-labeled area of the display screen, from which objects start flowing across the GUI. The source can be broadly defined to include all data and applications accessible by the GUI, or it can be more narrowly categorized by application (e.g., all applications, mapping applications, messaging applications, media playing applications, etc., etc.), by a data item (e.g., all applications and data that have some predefined relationship to a particular contact entry, such as all photos, messages, etc. from the contact entry, etc., etc.), and/or by a data category (e.g., music, pictures, media recorded within a particular time period, etc., etc.). Spec. i-f 35. According to Appellants' Specification, "any object can act as a source" and "[t]he user can transform any flowing object into a source by activating the object." Spec. i-f 37. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, "Oh teaches selectable objects, such as menu items, or applications including message 401, camera 402, music 403, game 404 and alarm 405 (Figs. 4-12). For example a message application 401 when selected (Fig. 7) it is shown to transform into a source for receiving message box 702 and sensing message box 703. Similarly, a music application 403 when selected (Fig. 9) it is shown to transform into a source for several music stations 901 to 904. Thus, as illustrated in Figs. 7 and 9, any object 7 Appeal2017-005674 Application 13/910,753 (message app, music app, etc.) can act as a source. The user can transform any object into a source by activating the object (see the activated object (message app (Fig. 7) and, music app (Fig. 9) are shown highlighted)." Ans. 12. Because "any object can act as a source" and "[t]he user can transform any object into a source by activating the object," we agree with the Examiner that Oh teaches the disputed limitation: "allowing user manipulation to transform one or more of the selectable objects into a source for content related to the transformed one or more selectable objects, wherein the source for content starts producing the content to the flow," as recited in Appellants' claim 1, when Oh's menu items ("objects") on a display screen are activated in response a user's touch and moves from a first (source) position to a second (destination) position. Ans. 12. In addition, we find the Examiner's rationale to incorporate Bederson's teachings regarding information flow of selected content ("objects") from one side of a screen to the other side the screen in a water- like motion into Oh' s GUI is supported with sufficient "rational underpinning" as required by KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), andin re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed Cir. 2006). For example, the Examiner reasons because Bederson's information flow from one side of a screen to the other side, the screen in a water-like motion is an intuitive interface and soothing to human users "it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Bederson with Oh ... to incorporate all the advantages described above in Bederson." Final Act. 10 (citing Bederson i-f 18); Ans. 13. 8 Appeal2017-005674 Application 13/910,753 Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual findings, In re Baxter, 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012), including what a reference teaches, In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and the existence of a reason to combine references, In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1365---66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As discussed previously, Oh teaches a graphical user interface (GUI) in a touch device where menu items ("objects") displayed on a display screen may move from a first (source) position to a second (destination) position where a user's touch is generated. Ans. 3 (citing Oh Figures 13-14); see also Oh i-fi-13, 18. Bederson also teaches a GUI where menu items ("objects") displayed on a display screen may move from one side of the screen to the other side and to disappear/reappear at the sides of the screen in a water-like motion. Bederson i-f 18. Bederson's GUI does not seek to obscure "portions of information flows" as Appellants argue. Reply Br. 3. Instead, Bederson's GUI presents these menu items ("objects") in the manner that is more intuitive and flows across the display screen for user's selection in the same manner disclosed by Appellants' Specification. See Spec. i-fi-133-37, 43, and 56. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have modified Oh's GUI to incorporate Bederson's teachings regarding the water-like motion flow, as proffered by the Examiner, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate all advantages described in Bederson (see Bederson i-f 18) into Oh. Ans. 6-7. As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's rationale for incorporating Bederson's teachings into Oh's GUI is not supported by "rational underpinning." 9 Appeal2017-005674 Application 13/910,753 For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2--4 and 6-10, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 6. Claim 11 Claim 11 recites similar limitations of claim 1; however, claim 11 is broader than claim 1 because claim 11 does not recite the "wherein" clause of claim 1, that is, "wherein the selectable objects are caused to be displayed in motion by appearing at a first respective side of the graphical user interface, travelling across the graphical user interface, and then disappearing at a second respective side of the graphical user interface." Without such a "wherein" clause, Oh alones teaches all the limitations of claim 11. However, a disclosure such as Oh that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in all but rare cases. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974); cf Cohesive Tech v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are separate conditions of patentability"). Based on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-14 and 16-20, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 6. 10 Appeal2017-005674 Application 13/910,753 CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20 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 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation