Ex Parte Arriola et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13030525 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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.
13/030,525 02/18/2011 George A. Arriola SONY-49100 2878
102824 7590 08/31/2017
HAVERSTOCK & OWENS, LLP
162 N. WOLFE ROAD
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LE V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGE A. ARRIOLA, MICHAEL P. BAUERLY,
MANABU SAKAMOTO, CARSTEN SCHWESIG, and
NICHOLAS TROTTA
Appeal 2017-005669
Application 13/030,525
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—10, 12—21, 23, and 24. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1—4, 7—10, 12—15, and 18—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Coomer et al. (US 2007/0300256 Al; pub. Dec. 27,
2007, hereinafter “Coomer”), Jobs et al. (US 2008/0174570 Al; pub. July
Appeal 2017-005669
Application 13/030,525
24, 2008, hereinafter “Jobs”), and Moehrle (US 7,191,411 B2; iss. Mar. 13,
2007). Final Act. 2-7.
Claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Coomer, Jobs, Moehrle, and Ishii et al. (US 2011/0022310 Al;
pub. Jan. 27, 2011, hereinafter “Ishii”). Final Act. 7—8.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Coomer, Jobs, Moehrle, Drayton et al. (US 2011/0055760 Al; pub.
Mar. 3, 2011, hereinafter “Drayton”), and Fujino (US 2001/0013877 Al;
pub. Aug. 16, 2001). Final Act. 8—10.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “a user interface to allow for
navigating a hierarchical menu.” Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below:
1. A method of presenting a user interface to allow
for navigating a hierarchical menu, the method comprising:
displaying, by a device, a user interface including one or
more menu elements, wherein each menu element is associated
with a row of content titles that may be displayed by the user
interface;
detecting an input command, by the device, associated
with a menu element;
updating the display of the user interface based on the
input command, wherein presentation of the row of content
2
Appeal 2017-005669
Application 13/030,525
titles associated with the menu element is updated to allow for
navigation within the row, and
wherein the content titles presented by the user interface
for the menu element are a subset of content titles that may be
accessed based on the menu element; and
detecting an input command to horizontally scroll the
content titles of a row, and presenting a link to one or more
additional titles associated with the menu element, wherein the
user interface is displayed in a view which enables a user to
navigate to content and bypass one or more hierarchical levels.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1^4,7-10,12-15, and 18-21 over
Coomer, Jobs, and Moehrle
The Examiner finds Coomer, Jobs, and Moehrle teach all limitations
of claim 1. Final Act. 2—A.
Appellants present the following principal arguments with respect to
the Examiner’s findings:
i. “The cited sections of Jobs do not teach wherein the user
interface is displayed in a view which enables a user to navigate to content
and bypass one or more hierarchical levels.” App. Br. 6; see also App. Br. 9.
3
Appeal 2017-005669
Application 13/030,525
ii. “Although Moehrle teaches presenting sibling menu items by
rolling over an active link, Moehrle does not teach presenting a link to one
or more additional titles associated with the menu element.” App. Br. 7; see
also App. Br. 9.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding argument (i), the Examiner finds Jobs teaches (claim 1)
updating the display of the user interface based on the input
command, wherein presentation of the row of content titles
associated with the menu element is updated to allow for
navigation within the row, and wherein the content titles
presented by the user interface for the menu element are a subset
of content titles that may be accessed based on the menu element.
See Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds Jobs teaches (claim 1) “wherein
the user interface is displayed in a view which enables a user to navigate to
content and bypass one or more hierarchical levels.” See Final Act. 3 (citing,
inter alia, Jobs 164, 209); see also Ans. 11—12 (“[U]ser selects menu
button 204 of [F]ig. 26B to bypass one or more hierarchical levels, e.g.
[F]ig. 26A.”). We agree with and adopt these findings as our own.
Jobs (1164) discloses “the menu button 204 may be used to navigate
to any application 136 in a set of applications that may be executed on the
device 100.” Jobs (1209) discloses “having all applications on one screen
and a menu button enables a user to access any desired application with at
most two inputs, such as activating the menu button 204 and then activating
the desired application.”
Put another way, menu button 204 enables a user to navigate to
content (applications), and bypass one or more hierarchical levels (all
applications on one screen bypasses hierarchical levels). Thus, Appellants’
4
Appeal 2017-005669
Application 13/030,525
argument (i) does not show any Examiner error because Jobs teaches the
argued limitations.
Regarding argument (ii), the Examiner finds Moehrle teaches (claim
1) “detecting an input command to horizontally scroll the content titles of a
row, and presenting a link.” See Final Act. 4 (citing Moehrle Figs. IB, 5 A—
C, col. 4,11. 52—53, col. 5,11. 1—23); see also Ans. 12 (“[DJynamic
construction of the Active Path 100 [shown in in Figs. 4—5C of Moehrle]
occurs automatically as the user navigates.”). In addition, the Examiner finds
Jobs teaches (claim 1) “presenting a link to one or more additional titles
associated with the menu element.” See Ans. 12 (“[Selecting ‘W’ from the
alphabetic list 4379 [in Fig. 43Q of Jobs] displays additional titles associated
with the menu item ‘Albums.’”). We agree with and adopt these findings as
our own.
Moehrle (Abstract) discloses “[a]n Active Path is dynamically
constructed as a sequence of active links as items are selected using the
graphical user menu system, with one active link correspond to each of the
items selected.” Moehrle (col. 4,11. 52—53), describing Figures 4 and 5A,
discloses “active link 102-c corresponds to menu item 12-c selected from
level 10-c.” Moehrle (col. 5,11. 1—23) discloses rolling over an active link
causes sibling menu items to be displayed, selection of an active link
additionally triggers the construction of a new active path.
Put another way, Jobs teaches (claim 1) “presenting a link to one or
more additional titles associated with the menu element” (Jobs, Fig. 43Q,
alphabetic list 4379). However, Jobs’s link is not presented in response to
detecting an input command to horizontally scroll the content titles of a row.
That said, Moehrle teaches (claim 1) “detecting an input command to
5
Appeal 2017-005669
Application 13/030,525
horizontally scroll the content titles of a row,” (Moehrle’s selecting items
using the graphical user menu system) “and presenting a link” (Moehrle’s
constructing an Active Path). The Examiner articulates reasons for
combining the teachings of Jobs and Moehrle with Coomer that are rational
on their face. See Final Act. 3^4. Appellants do not present any
particularized arguments as to why the reasons are erroneous. See App. Br.
6—9. Thus, Appellants’ argument (ii) does not show any Examiner error in
the Examiner’s findings and reasons for how Moehrle and Jobs collectively
teach the argued limitations.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—A and 7—10, which are not
separately argued with particularity.
Regarding claim 12, Appellants present the same principal arguments
as presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 9—10. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 12. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 13—15 and 18—21, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5, 6,16, and 17 over Coomer,
Jobs, Moehrle, and Ishii
Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims 5, 6, 16, and
17. See App. Br. 10.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 16, and
17.
6
Appeal 2017-005669
Application 13/030,525
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 23 and 24 over Coomer, Jobs,
Moehrle, Drayton, and Fujino
The Examiner finds Coomer, Jobs, Moehrle, Drayton, and Fujino
teach all limitations of claim 23. Final Act. 8—10.
Appellants present the following principal arguments with respect to
the Examiner’s findings:
i. “Although Drayton teaches faded menu items, Drayton does not
teach wherein each content title in a row not associated with the menu item
is displayed partially faded.” App. Br. 11; see also App. Br. 14.
ii. “Although the folder tree of Fujino shows levels of folders such
as folders and sub-folders, there is nothing in Fujino regarding bypassing
one or more hierarchical levels includes selecting the content based on rows
of preview content.” App. Br. 12; see also App. Br. 14.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness
Regarding argument (i), the Examiner finds Drayton teaches (claim
23) “wherein each content title in a row not associated with the menu item is
displayed partially faded.” See Final Act. 9 (citing Drayton 122); see also
Ans. 13. Drayton (| 22) discloses “the non-selected level 1 menu items from
the first concentric menu are animated to fade away as illustrated in FIG. 4,
or to fade until a certain transparency is reached.” We agree with and adopt
this finding as our own.
Put another way, Drayton’s Figure 3 depicts menu items 10, 20, 30,
40; when item 20 is selected, each item 10, 30, 40 fades away (Figure 4) or
is partially faded (122). Thus, Drayton teaches (claim 23) “wherein each
content title in a row not associated with the menu item” (items 10, 30, 40 in
Fig. 3) “is displayed partially faded” (Fig. 4,122 describes fade away or
7
Appeal 2017-005669
Application 13/030,525
partial fading). To the extent items 10, 20, 30, 40 are not content titles in
rows, Drayton is relied on to teach fading of unselected items, Coomer is
relied on to teach title information in horizontal rows (see Final Act. 8), and
the argued limitations in the context of claim 23 are taught when the
references are combined. The Examiner articulates a reason for combining
the teachings of Drayton with Coomer, Jobs, and Moehrle that is rational on
its face. See Final Act. 9 (“to provide focus on active items(s)”). Thus,
Appellants’ argument (i) does not show any Examiner error.
Regarding argument (ii), the Examiner finds Fujino teaches (claim 23)
“wherein bypassing one or more hierarchical levels includes selecting the
content based on rows of preview content.” See Final Act. 10 (citing Fujino
Tflf 66, 89—92). Fujino 1 66 discloses “[tjhese icons display the contents of
the files as thumbnails (miniature images), so that the contents of the files
can be roughly grasped at a single look.” Fujino H 89—92 disclose, in Figs.
11 and 12, selecting files from among different folders, display portion W2
showing the selected files, display portion W1 showing files in folders
selected in tree display window W4. Thus, Fujino teaches (claim 23)
“wherein bypassing one or more hierarchical levels” (Fujino’s selecting any
folder in tree display window W4) “includes selecting the content based on
rows of preview content” (Fujino’s selecting files based on thumbnails).
Thus, Appellants’ argument (ii) does not show any Examiner error.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24, which is not separately argued
with particularity.
8
Appeal 2017-005669
Application 13/030,525
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10, 12—21, 23, and 24 is
affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
9