Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 15, 2021

2020005484 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2021)

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.
15/295,869 10/17/2016 Richard R. Dellinger P19154USC1/63266-7457-
US
1082
61725 7590 12/15/2021
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)(Apple)
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
EXAMINER
ROSWELL, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2021 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD R. DELLINGER,
GREGORY CHRISTIE, and JUSTIN S. TITI
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 7–34. Claim 6 is canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a device, a method, and a graphical user
interface for organizing and presenting a collection of media items. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
storing one or more programs, the one or more programs
comprising instructions, which when executed by an electronic
device with a display and a touch-sensitive surface, cause the
electronic device to:

obtain a collection of media items, wherein the media
items are organized into a hierarchy of granularity levels that
includes one or more detailed-granularity levels within one or
more overview-granularity levels;

receive a first request to display a first portion of the
collection organized in accordance with a first detailed-
granularity level;

in response to the first request, display a first plurality of
representations of the media items wherein:

the first plurality of representations are displayed in
a first two-dimensional (2D) grid at a detailed-granularity
size; and

the first plurality of representations in the first two-
dimensional (2D) grid are spaced apart from each other by
a detailed-granularity distance;

while displaying the first plurality of representations of the
media items at the detailed-granularity level, spaced apart from
each other by the detailed-granularity distance, receive a second
request to display a second portion of the collection organized in
accordance with a respective overview-granularity level that
corresponds to multiple detailed-granularity levels; and

Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

3
in response to the second request, display a second
plurality of representations of the media items wherein:

the second plurality of representations are displayed
in a second two-dimensional (2D) grid at an overview-
granularity size, smaller than the detailed-granularity size;
and

adjacent representations of media items in the
second plurality of representations of media items are
displayed in the second two-dimensional (2D) grid
without spacing between the adjacent representations of
media items.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hunleth et al. US 2004/0268393 A1 Dec. 30, 2004
Abanami et al. US 2006/0168542 A1 July 27, 2006
Wong et al. US 7,725,837 B2 May 25, 2010
Kim et al. US 2010/0173678 A1 July 8, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 12–15, 21, 25, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunleth in view of Abanami.
Claims 3–5, 16–18, and 26–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunleth and Abanami further in view of
Wong.
Claims 7–11, 19, 20, 22–24, and 29–33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunleth and Abanami further in view of
Kim.
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

4
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Independent claims 1, 13, and 14
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.”). We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any
other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Brief are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 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.
Appellant argues that the Examiner is inferring the spacing between
Hunleth’s movie images are different in Figures 17 and 18, but “Hunleth’s
graphical user interfaces in FIGS. 17-18 are devoid of any context for which
absolute distances could be inferred (e.g., Hunleth does not show both
graphical user interfaces on the same display or device),” and “to
demonstrate that it was known in the art to display first and second two-
dimensional grids of media items at different granularity levels with
different spacing, as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 16.
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

5
We disagree with Appellant and find that none of the embodiments
shown in Figure 5 of the Appellant’s Specification show a mix of granularity
levels on the same display. Rather, the display switches between modes of
operation with a single granularity on a display screen at a single time.
Appellant further argues that Abanami, however, does not teach a 2D
grid of representations of media items displayed without spacing. Appeal
Br. 17–18.
Appellant’s argument is not germane to the Examiner’s rejection,
because the Examiner relied upon the Hunleth reference to teach the 2D
grid, and the Examiner relied upon the Abanami reference to teach or
suggest the use in an array without spacing. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner
finds that Appellant is arguing the references individually. Ans. 7.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner overgeneralizes the claims
and Appellant’s arguments. Appeal Br. 18–19. Appellant specifically
argues that Appellant
does not assert that a 2D grid “without spacing” is a
“revolutionary concept.” Rather, the Applicant submits that the
cited references do not teach representations of media items in
different 2D grids, with different spacing (and one without
spacing), depending on whether the user requests display at a
“detailed-granularity level” or an “overview-granularity level.”
In particular, at the overview granularity level, the “plurality of
representations are displayed in a two-dimensional (2D) grid at
an overview-granularity size, smaller than the detailed-
granularity size; and adjacent representations of media items in
the second plurality of representations of media items are
displayed in the second two-dimensional (2D) grid without
spacing between the adjacent representations of media items.”
Providing different 2D grids, with different spacing, has several
benefits, including providing an appropriate number and size of
representations of media items given the granularity level, while
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

6
dispensing with spacing between adjacent items at the overview-
granularity level enables the display of more items
(representations) in the same amount of space than would
otherwise be the case, but has less impact on the quality of
information presented to the user than dispensing with spacing
would have at a more detailed granularity level, since the
representations at the overview granularity are already smaller
than in at the more detailed granularity level. The cited
references do not capture this concept.
Appeal Br. 18–19.
The Examiner finds that Appellant proceeds to espouse the benefits of
the claim but in doing so misrepresents the claim language. Ans. 8–9.
Specifically, the Examiner finds there is no explicit requirement that the
representations of media items are in different grids or have different
spacing, but the Examiner finds Appellant then ends the contention with a
conclusory statement that “[t]he cited references do not capture this concept”
without any further explanation as to why. Ans. 8–9.
Appellant contends that
The Examiner is correct that whether Hunleth teaches
“different spacing” is relevant to the differences between
Hunleth and the claimed invention. However, assuming,
arguendo, that Hunleth does not teach different 2D grids of
representations of media items at different granularity levels with
different spacing, none of the cited references do. Abanami
teaches a “list of digital elements” and is cited only as teaching
“adjacent representations of media items that are displayed
without spacing between the adjacent representations of media
items.” Abanami says nothing of different spacing.
The Examiner says that it would be obvious to apply
Abanami’s spacing between a list of digital elements to only one
of Hunleth’s grids, but it is not clear what permissible motivation
under KSR would lead a skilled artisan to do so. The Final Office
Action offers, as a motivation, that “one would be motivated to
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

7
do so to more fully utilize display screen space.” But this does
not explain why a skilled artisan would apply different spacing
to different 2D grids of representations of media items at
different granularity levels. Rather, the Examiner appears to
have found the motivation to combine in the claim itself, and thus
the rejection reeks of hindsight bias.
Reply Br. 4 (footnotes omitted).
We disagree with Appellant and find that the Examiner has provided a
showing of each of the claimed features and a motivation for the
combination with a rational underpinning to support the conclusion of
obviousness of having a two-dimensional grid with no spacing between the
representations of media items to have a different granularity to optimize
display space on the display screen. Additionally, Appellant has provided
no persuasive evidence to the contrary. The Abanami reference discloses
“space efficient lists for thumbnails” and “presenting lists of thumbnails
representing digital elements where selected thumbnails are overlapped to
utilize display space.” Abanami (54) title and ¶¶ 13, 46.
Additionally, we note that the Abanami reference discloses in Figure
2 and paragraph 24 the use of input mechanism 110 to scroll forward,
backwards, up, and down which teaches and suggests the use of the system
with a two-dimensional grid or array of data.
The Examiner clarifies the findings relied upon for the teachings of
the claimed invention and provides rational underpinnings for the
combination of the teachings from the two prior art references. Ans. 3–8. In
the absence of sufficient evidence or argument to the contrary, we find the
Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to
justify the legal conclusion of obviousness and are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s contention that the Examiner’s combination of references is
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

8
inadequate or improper. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because Appellant has not set forth separate
arguments for patentability of independent claims 13 and 14 and dependent
claims 2, 4, 7, 8–12, 16, 17, 19–24, 26, 27, and 29–34 not separately argued,
we sustain these claims for the same reasons as representative independent
claim 1.
Claims 3, 15, and 25
With respect to dependent claims 3, 15, and 25, Appellant argues the
claims together and does not set forth separate arguments for patentability.
As a result, we select dependent claim 3 as the representative claim and
address Appellant’s arguments thereto. Claim 3 recites:
the first detailed-granularity level corresponds to a first
timescale;
the second detailed-granularity level corresponds to a
second timescale larger than the first timescale; and
the overview-granularity level corresponds to a third
timescale larger than the second timescale.
Appellant argues that
Taken together with claims 1 and 2, claim 3 requires at least two
“detailed-granularity level[s]” (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 5F-5I of
the application-as-filed). Representations displayed in a 2D grid
at the first detailed-granularity level and the second detailed
granularity level correspond to different time scales (claim 3),
but are displayed with the same size (“the detailed-granularity
size,” claim 2) and the same spacing (“the detailed granularity
spacing,” claim 2). At a certain time scale (“the first time scale,”
claim 3), the representations are displayed with a smaller size and
without spacing in a 2D grid.
Appeal Br. 20.
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

9
Appellant further argues that merely “zooming in and out” on a
collection of images does not fully capture the subject matter of dependent
claim 3 and Wong does not display images in a two-dimensional grid.
Appeal Br. 20. Appellant further argues that the Wong reference does not
teach or suggest that zooming in and out on the quilt results in images with
different sizes and spacing (as would be the case with the “detailed
granularity level” and the “overview-granularity level” in claim 1. Appeal
Br. 21.
The Examiner finds that Wong teaches a two-dimensional grid. Ans.
10. The Examiner finds that nothing in the claim language limits how many
rows or columns have to be present in the grid or whether the images have to
be arranged uniformly. Ans. 10. Based on this finding, the Examiner finds
that any of the displays in Wong, Figs. 1–4 show images in a two-
dimensional grid. Ans. 10. With regard to the second argument, the
Examiner finds that the Wong reference teaches that zooming in and out
results in images at different time scales. Ans. 10.
The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill would
understand looking at Figures 2–4, the timescale progressively gets smaller
as one zooms. Ans. 10. The Examiner further finds that Appellant’s
arguments regarding the time limitations attacks only Wong individually and
fails to consider the references as a whole where the Examiner has
consistently maintained that Hunleth teaches a two-dimensional grid at an
overview granularity level. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that Fig. 17 and
paragraphs 78 and 80 of the Hunleth reference further teaches at least two
different detailed-granularity levels as there are multiple portions of the
collection (e.g., Action, Classics) that can be zoomed into with different
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

10
detailed granularity levels as discussed in the rejection of dependent claim 2.
Ans. 10.
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149
F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior
art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Regardless of the general contentions and imputed intended meanings
articulated by Appellant in the Briefs, we are bound by the controlling
guidance of our reviewing court: “[i]t is the claims that measure the
invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (citations omitted); In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citations omitted) (“[T]he name of the game is
the claim.”) (emphasis added). “Though understanding the claim language
may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is
important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the
claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). “We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim
from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

11
the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We note claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking
into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the specification. In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “In the patentability
context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations[,]
. . . limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Here, we note that the language of dependent claim 3 recites the
details of the data to be displayed and provides no functional limitation in
the steps performed by the instructions executed by the electronic device to
distinguish over the prior art combination. Moreover, the claim limitations
are just nonfunctional descriptive material regarding the media items that
does not change the steps of the method or instructions executed.
Consequently, dependent claim 3 does not further distinguish the
instructions and does not further limit the non-transitory computer readable
storage medium storing programs with instructions. As a result, Appellant’s
arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness of dependent claim 3.
Claims 5, 18, and 28
Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability. We
select dependent claim 5 as the representative claim for the group.
Appellant argues that the Examiner appears to be taking the position that an
object-selection margin is inherent in Wong (“at some point ...
would include”). That simply cannot be the case. “In relying
upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

12
in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the
determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic
necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex
parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990)
(emphasis in original) (MPEP 2112.IV). It is certainly possible,
and indeed likely, that a user can select an image at any of
Wong’s zoom levels. Thus, it does not “necessarily flow” from
Wong’s express teachings that Wong’s system would account for
an “object-selection margin.”
Appeal Br. 23. Appellant further argues that the Wong reference addresses
the problem, of photographic details that cannot be legibly presented when a
thumbnail is diminished beyond a certain size, not through the use of an
“object selection margin,” but through “tiered zooming” (Wong, col. 2, 11.
45–46). There is nothing express or inherent about an “object-selection
margin” in Wong’s tiered zooming description. Appeal Br. 24.
The Examiner finds that, based upon the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim language consistent with the Specification, the
claim language requires the ability to select objects at that distance and this
is taught by the Hunleth reference that teaches this particular limitation
because paragraph 80 teaches that users can select individual objects in Fig.
18. Ans. 12.
We agree with the Examiner, and we disagree with Appellant’s
arguments. We find that the rejection is not based upon inherency as an
anticipation rejection, but rather that it is based upon obviousness. We note
that the Specification provides an example of “object-selection margin” in
paragraph 189 “(e.g., a spacing that enables users to easily distinguish and
select between different image thumbnails).” Additionally, the Specification
only uses the term in paragraphs 198, 235, and original dependent claim 5.
As a result, we agree with Examiner and find that Appellant’s arguments do
Appeal 2020-005484
Application 15/295,869

13
not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of
obviousness in the rejection of dependent claim 5.

CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–5 and
7–34.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 12–15,
21, 25, 34
103(a) Hunleth, Abanami 1, 2, 12–15,
21, 25, 34

3–5, 16–18,
26–28
103(a) Hunleth, Abanami,
Wong
3–5, 16–18,
26–28

7–11, 19,
20, 22–24,
29–33
103(a) Hunleth, Abanami,
Kim
7–11, 19,
20, 22–24,
29–33

Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–34
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED