Platzer, Andrew Emilio. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 17, 2020

11968051 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2020)

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.
11/968,051 12/31/2007 Andrew Emilio Platzer P4936US1/77770000111101 8111
150004 7590 04/17/2020
DENTONS US LLP - Apple
4655 Executive Dr
Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
EXAMINER
BUKOWSKI, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2020 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):
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
patent.docket@dentons.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREW EMILIO PLATZER, STEPHEN O. LEMAY,
MARCEL VAN OS, CORBIN ROBERT DUNN, and
FREDDY ALLEN ANZURES

Appeal 2018-0074711
Application 11/968,051
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 50–71. Claims 5, 7,
9, 12, and 15–49 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We have previously rendered a
Decision on a previous Appeal involving this application. Ex parte Platzer,

1 An oral hearing was held March 9, 2020.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple, Inc.
(Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2018-007471
Application 11/968,051

2
et al., Appeal 2014-005234 (PTAB April 22, 2016) (hereafter, “2016
Decision”).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a graphical
user interface for inputting date and time information on a portable
multifunction device. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
2. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
at a portable multifunction device with a touch screen
display,
displaying a date column comprising a sequence of
concurrently displayed dates, wherein a respective date in the
sequence of dates comprises a name of a month and a date
number of a day within the month;
displaying an hour column comprising a sequence of
concurrently displayed hour numbers;
displaying a minute column comprising a sequence of
concurrently displayed minute numbers;
displaying a selection row that intersects the date column,
the hour column, and the minute column and identifies a single
selected date, a single selected hour number, and a single
selected minute number, wherein the date column, the hour
column, the minute column, and the selection row are
persistently displayed;
detecting a first vertical swipe gesture on the date
column;
in response to detecting the first vertical swipe gesture on
the date column, scrolling the dates in the date column without
Appeal 2018-007471
Application 11/968,051

3
scrolling the hour numbers in the hour column or the minute
numbers in the minute column;
detecting a second vertical swipe gesture on the hour
column;
in response to detecting the second vertical swipe gesture
on the hour column, scrolling the hour numbers in the hour
column without scrolling the dates in the date column or the
minute numbers in the minute column;
detecting a third vertical swipe gesture on the minute
column;
in response to detecting the third vertical swipe gesture
on the minute column, scrolling the minute numbers in the
minute column without scrolling the dates in the date column or
the hour numbers in the hour column; and
using the single selected date, the single selected hour
number, and the single selected minute number in the selection
row after scrolling the dates, the hour numbers and the minute
numbers, respectively, as time input for a function or
application on the multifunction device.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 10, 11, 50–55, and 58–71 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Molnar et al. (US 5,734,597,
issued Mar. 31, 1998), Murphy (US 2002/0093535 A1, pub. July 18, 2002),
Tojo et al. (US 7,503,014 B2, issued Mar. 10, 2009), Kahl et al. (US
5,428,736, issued June 27, 1995), and Wherry (US 2007/0236475 Al, pub.
Oct. 11, 2007). (Final Act. 4–15.)
The Examiner rejected claims 2–4, 6, 8, 13–14, and 56–57 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Molnar, Murphy, Kahl, and
Wherry. (Final Act. 15–20.)
Appeal 2018-007471
Application 11/968,051

4
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issues:3
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Molnar, Murphy, Kahl, and Wherry teaches or suggests the “selection row”
and “swipe gesture” requirements claimed in independent claims 2, 13, and
14. (Appeal Br. 11–24.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Molnar, Murphy, Tojo, Kahl, and Wherry teaches or suggests the
“continuous loop” requirements claimed in independent claim 1. (Appeal
Br. 24–26.)
Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Molnar, Murphy, Tojo, Kahl, and Wherry teaches or suggests the
additional requirements claimed in dependent claim 63. (Appeal Br. 26–28.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
arguments, and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4–20);
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 2–9), and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner.

3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 26, 2018); the Reply Brief
(filed July 17, 2018); the Final Office Action (mailed Feb. 24, 2017); and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 17, 2018) for the respective details.
Appeal 2018-007471
Application 11/968,051

5
Issue One
Appellant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest a
selection row that simultaneously identifies a single selected date, hour
number, and minute number from several concurrently displayed columns.
(Appeal Br. 14.) For this claim requirement, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure in Molnar of a graphical user interface that includes date and time
control windows that have “spin buttons” allowing selection of a date and
time (including hour and minute). (Final Act. 15–16; Molnar Fig. 2, 4:48–
67.) The Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Murphy of a user
interface including a row of display windows, which in one embodiment
each includes a column displaying a “just passed” character, a current
character, and an “on-deck” character, with the displayed characters being
controlled (in one variation) with manual advance and back-up keys. (Final
Act. 17; Murphy Fig. 1, ¶¶ 19, 32–36, 39, 55, 63.)
Appellant argues Molnar fails to show multiple concurrently
displayed columns of values; it instead discloses single values arranged in a
row. (Appeal Br. 14.) Appellant further argues that Murphy detects single
characters one-by-one rather than selecting multiple entries in a row at the
same time, and in addition, the different values in the row are unrelated, as
opposed to selecting date, hour, and minute values. (Appeal Br. 15.)
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it argues the references
individually, whereas the Examiner relies on the teachings of the
combination of Molnar and Murphy. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The
test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”). The pertinent
Appeal 2018-007471
Application 11/968,051

6
disclosure of Molnar teaches selecting multiple related date, hour, and
minute values, and that of Murphy teaches a selection row that intersects
columns of values.4 (Final Act. 15–17; Ans. 2–4.) We agree with the
Examiner that this combination of disclosures teaches or suggests the
selection row as claimed. Id.; see 2016 Decision at 6–10.
Appellant also argues that Wherry fails to disclose a scroll gesture that
selects values or positions an item into a selection row, but rather scrolls
menu screens. (Appeal Br. 18–19.) This argument is also unpersuasive as
focusing on the individual reference rather than on its contribution to the
combination of references on which the Examiner relies. We agree with the
Examiner that, in combination, the swipe gesture taught by Wherry is readily
applied to Molnar in place of the spin buttons disclosed in the latter. (Final
Act. 18; Ans. 4–5.) “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of
a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Instead, the relevant issue
is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”
In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).
Appellant further argues that Murphy teaches away from a
combination with Molnar and Wherry because Murphy states that manual

4 We also reiterate our conclusion in the prior decision: “Other than the
descriptive labels assigned, we discern no functional difference between
displays of date, hour, minute, and second values that would create a
patentable distinction between a row containing hour, minute, and second
values . . . vis-à-vis a row containing date, hour, and minute values . . . .”
2016 Decision, 8, n.3.
Appeal 2018-007471
Application 11/968,051

7
advancement through a sequence of characters is “inherently slow,” and
discloses an embodiment directed to speeding up character selection by
automatically advancing or scrolling through several sequences of characters
simultaneously. (Appeal Br. 21.) However, as Appellant admits, Murphy
also discloses an embodiment that allows a user to manually scroll. (Id. at
22.) We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would not have
been dissuaded from taking into account the teachings of a more relevant
embodiment (relating to manually advancing the characters) by the
discussions of a less relevant embodiment (in which the characters are
continuously advanced). (Ans. 6.) Teaching an alternative method does not
teach away from the use of a claimed method. In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433,
438 (CCPA 1965); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567
F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away […] if
it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention[.]”).
Finally, Appellant argues Molnar teaches away from adding Kahl to
the combination, because Molnar deliberately separates the month and day
into two distinct entries, whereas Kahl discloses combining the month and
day as a single entry. (Appeal Br. 23–24.) Again, we agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill would not have been dissuaded from
incorporating the combined month and day entry technique of Kahl into the
user interface of Molnar, notwithstanding that Molnar focused on the ability
to flexibly display dates in accordance with different international standards
— which focus would not be at issue to one of ordinary skill in considering
the combination as a whole. (Ans. 7.) In re Nievelt, supra. See 2016
Decision, 10:
Appeal 2018-007471
Application 11/968,051

8
Appellants do not persuade us that the resulting combination,
providing . . . that a date column should include both the name
of a month and a date number of a day within the month, as in
Kahl, would be ‘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. FisherPrice, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
418-19).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 13, and
14 as obvious over Molnar, Murphy, Kahl, and Wherry.
Issue Two
Appellant argues one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated
to combine Tojo with Molnar and Murphy to cause the swipe gestures in the
columns to form a continuous loop because Tojo relates to scrolling menu
items, whereas Molnar uses spin buttons to increment values in date/time
fields, and Murphy uses a separate soft key to advance values. (Appeal Br.
25–26.) Again, this argument is unpersuasive as arguing the references
separately, whereas the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination of
references. In re Keller, supra. We agree with the Examiner that the
character displays of Murphy at least suggest a continuous loop, and Tojo
builds upon the teachings of Murphy by providing explicit support for a
continuous loop of data. (Ans. 7–8.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over Molnar, Murphy, Tojo, Kahl, and Wherry.
Issue Three
Claim 63 depends from claim 1 and additionally requires, “[each]
vertical swipe gesture causes identification of at least one of the single
Appeal 2018-007471
Application 11/968,051

9
selected date, the single select hour number, and the single selected minute
number, respectively, in the selection row.” (Appeal Br. 36.) Appellant’s
arguments for this claim is essentially duplicative of its arguments for claim
1. (Appeal Br. 27.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 63 as obvious over Molnar, Murphy, Tojo, Kahl, and Wherry for the
same reasons as set forth above.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 10–11,
50–55, 58–
71
103 Molnar,
Murphy,
Tojo, Kahl,
Wherry
1, 10, 11,
50–55, 58–
71

2–4, 6, 8,
13–14, 56–
57
103 Molnar,
Murphy,
Kahl,
Wherry
2–4, 6, 8,
13–14, 56–
57

Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 8,
10, 11, 13,
14, 50–71

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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