Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 23, 20202019005071 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2020) 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. 14/643,476 03/10/2015 Julien Jalon 27753-50081C1 1097 132324 7590 11/23/2020 F&P, LLP 2712 Augustine Drive Suite 240 Santa Clara, CA 95054 EXAMINER BELOUSOV, ANDREY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2145 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/23/2020 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): mail@fernando-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JULIEN JALON and JULIE ROBERT Appeal 2019-005071 Application 14/643,476 Technology Center 2100 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JOHN A. EVANS, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2019-005071 Application 14/643,476 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20, 23–37, and 39–47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2 Appellant describes the invention as relating to methods for managing data including displaying an icon that provides preview content of a file without launching the application that created the file. Spec. ¶¶ 5–6. Claim 20 is illustrative: 20. A method, comprising: at an electronic device with a display device and an input device: displaying, via the display device, a display region that includes a plurality of icons that represent corresponding files in the same folder of a file system, the plurality of icons concurrently including a first icon that includes a first content portion of a preview of a first file and a second icon that includes a first content portion of a preview of a second file; detecting, via the input device, a first user input at a location corresponding to a respective icon of the plurality of icons; and 1 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. 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated June 26, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed January 21, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated May 2, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed June 19, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2019-005071 Application 14/643,476 3 in response to detecting the first user input: in accordance with a determination that the first user input is detected over the first icon, displaying, within the first icon, a user interface control corresponding to the first icon that, when activated, causes display, within the first icon in the display region, of a second content portion of the preview of the first file; and in accordance with a determination that the first user input is detected over the second icon, displaying, within the second icon, a user interface control corresponding to the second icon that, when activated, causes display, within the second icon in the display region, of a second content portion of the preview of the second file. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Bhukhanwala US 5,831,617 Nov. 3, 1998 Adatia et al. (“Adatia”) US 2003/0103079 A1 June 5, 2003 Nakamura US 6,691,114 B1 Feb. 10, 2004 Kurtz et al. (“Kurtz”) US 2004/0189695 A1 Sept. 30, 2004 Appeal 2019-005071 Application 14/643,476 4 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: A. Claims 20, 23–37, and 39–46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bhukhanwala in view of Adatia and Kurtz. Ans. 3. B. Claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bhukhanwala in view of Adatia, Kurtz, and Nakamura. Id. at 6. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The Appellant presents distinct arguments for (i) claim 20, (ii) claims 44 and 45, and (iii) claim 47. Appeal Br. 5, 10, 11. We limit our discussion to those claims. All other claims stand or fall with representative claim 20. Claim 20. The Examiner rejects claim 20 as obvious over Bhukhanwala in view of Adatia and Kurtz. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Bhukhanwala teaches, for example, a plurality of icons that include content portion of a file previews. Id. at 3–4 (citing Bhukhanwala). The Examiner Appeal 2019-005071 Application 14/643,476 5 finds that Bhukhanwala does not explicitly disclose, for example, detecting a first user input at a location corresponding to a respective icon of the plurality of icons and, in response to that input, displaying within the icon a user interface control. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds, however, that Adatia teaches a preview pane similar to Bhukhanwala and teaches displaying a user interface control within an icon. Id. at 4–5 (citing Adatia). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Adatia and Bhukhanwala “so as to not clutter up the screen with additional controls that can readily be displayed as needed.” Id. at 5. The Examiner also finds that Kurtz teaches a similar method for a preview control and finds that Kurtz teaches displaying controls within an icon. Id. at 5 (citing Kurtz). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Bhukhanwala and Kurtz “to display the first and second content portions of previews within icons, so as to not clutter up the screen real estate with additional controls that can readily be overlaid in the icon.” Id. Appellant argues that Bhukhanwala teaches using controls to allow a user to move to past versions of a file, but not to preview different portions of the file, as claim 20 recites. Appeal Br. 6–7. The Examiner, however, finds that Bhukhanwala describes its “container ‘movie’ object” as teaching “multiple versions (i.e. contents) corresponding to a same file.” Ans. 7 (“Browsing through the older or newer versions of a file becomes intuitive like browsing movies.” (Quoting Bhukhanwala 3:58–60)). Appellant does not persuasively dispute this finding. Appeal 2019-005071 Application 14/643,476 6 Moreover, the Examiner also finds that Kurtz teaches navigation of contents of the same file. Ans. 8 (citing Kurtz ¶ 51). Appellant does not persuasively address the Examiner’s use of Kurtz as teaching this recitation. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant also argues that Kurtz does not teach displaying “within the first icon” and “within the second icon” as claim 20 recites. Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner, however, determines that preview control 604 corresponds to a dynamic icon having displays within it (Ans. 8–9), and Appellant does not persuasively dispute this point. Also, the Examiner relies on Kurtz as teaching that directional controls may be placed within a user interface element. Ans. 9. Appellant’s argument does not persuasively address the Examiner’s combination of the teachings of Bhukhanwala (teaching multiple icons as user interface elements) and Kurtz (teachings placement of directional controls within a user interface element). Appellant next argues that Adatia does not teach a second icon. Appeal Br. 9. This argument is unpersuasive because it addresses Adatia individually rather than addressing the references’ combined teachings. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The Examiner relies on Bhukhanwala, not Adatia, as teaching multiple icons. Ans. 10. Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20, 20, 23–37, and 39–43 and 46. Claims 44 and 45. Claim 44 recites “[t]he method of claim 20, wherein displaying the user interface control corresponding to the first icon comprises: executing a first plug-in associated with a first creator application Appeal 2019-005071 Application 14/643,476 7 that created the first file.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Claim 45 requires, for example, a different plug-in for the second icon. Id. The Examiner rejects claims 44 and 45 as obvious over Bhukhanwala, Adatia, and Kurtz. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that Kurtz teaches executing plug-ins. Id. (citing Kurtz); see also Ans. 10–11. Appellant argues that Kurtz does not disclose, for example, “executing a first plug-in associated with a first creator application that created the first file” or “executing a second plug-in associated with a second creator application that created the second file.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner, however, finds that paragraphs 52 and 53 suggest that “third parties (creator applications) for numerous file types may provide their own code (plug-in) for previewing their associated files.” Ans. 10–11. The Examiner’s position is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Kurtz teaches, for example, custom previewers for numerous file types and teaches that “[t]hird parties are allowed to describe and demonstrate their file types by providing code that can look inside the file type.” Id. at 11 (emphasis modified). Kurtz’s reference to “their file types” suggests that the third parties support the third party programs that created the particular file types. In other words, the passage supports that Kurtz suggests use of plug-ins associated with creator applications. See also Spec. ¶ 128 (explaining that plug-ins are software components akin to the “custom previewers for numerous file types and non-file item types” that Kurtz references). Appellant does not persuasively explain why the Examiner’s reasoning is incorrect. Because Appellant’s argument does not identify Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 44 and 45. Appeal 2019-005071 Application 14/643,476 8 Claim 47. Claim 47 recites “[t]he method of claim 46, wherein the second file includes an image and the user interface control corresponding to the second icon includes a zoom button.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claim 47 as obvious over Bhukhanwala, Adatia, Kurtz, and Nakamura. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that Nakamura discloses a method for navigating and inspecting an image similar to the other references and teaches a user interface control including a zoom button. Id. at 6–7. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to combine this teaching with Bhukhanwala, Adatia, and Kurtz “so as to show additional detail in a subset of an image area.” Id. Appellant argues that a person of skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Nakamura with the teachings of the other references because Nakamura displays a generated search map rather than an existing file. Appeal Br. 10–11. The Examiner finds, however, that Nakamura, like the other references, relates to previewing images and controlling image navigation. Ans. 11–12. The Examiner’s position is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Bhukhanwala Fig. 1B, 2A; Nakamura Fig. 7A). Implementation of Nakamura’s zoom function into Bhukhanwala is no more than predictable use of a prior art element according to its established function. KSR Int’l, Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellant does not provide persuasive argument to the contrary. Because Appellant does not identify Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 47. Appeal 2019-005071 Application 14/643,476 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 20, 23–37, 39–46 103 Bhukhanwala, Adatia, Kurtz 20, 23–37, 39–46 47 103 Bhukhanwala, Adatia, Kurtz, Nakamura 47 Overall Outcome 20, 23–37, 39–47 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation