Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 15, 20212020005484 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation