Ex Parte Christie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

11961760 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 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.
11/961,760 12/20/2007 Greg Christie 106842094300 (P4966US1) 6851
119082 7590 03/27/2017
Apple c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP SF
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2485
EXAMINER
THATCHER, PAUL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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):
EOfficeSF @mofo.com
PatentDocket @ mofo. com
pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREG CHRISTIE, IMRAN CHAUDHRI, SCOTT FORSTALL,
and STEPHEN O. LEMAY
Appeal 2015-0003711
Application 11/961,7602
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-
final rejection of claims 1—5, 24, and 33—51. Claims 6—23 and 25—32 are
cancelled. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 An oral hearing was held March 16, 2017.
2 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-000371
Application 11/961,760
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to various
display arrangements of user interface objects on a portable multifunction
device depending on predefined conditions. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method implemented at a portable multifunction device
with a touch screen display, comprising:
identifying a first group of user interface objects and a
second group of user interface objects, wherein said first
group corresponds to a first file system folder, and said
second group corresponds to a second file system folder
distinct from the first file system folder, and wherein
a respective user interface object in the first group
of user interface objects is associated with a
corresponding data file in the first file system
folder, and
a respective user interface object in the second
group of user interface objects is associated with a
corresponding data file in the second file system
folder, distinct from the first folder; and
automatically displaying objects associated with the first
group and the second group in response to the device
determining that the first group and the second group
meet predefined conditions, including:
in response to the device determining that the first
group and the second group meet a first predefined
condition, distinct from a second predefined
condition and a third predefined condition,
automatically concurrently displaying on the touch
screen display
objects in the first group of user interface
objects,
2
Appeal 2015-000371
Application 11/961,760
a label for the first group of user interface
objects,
objects in the second group of user interface
objects, and
a label for the second group of user interface
objects while maintaining data files that
correspond to the first group of user
interface objects in the first file system
folder and data files that correspond to the
second group of user interface objects in the
second file system folder;
in response to the device determining that the first
group and the second group meet the second
predefined condition, distinct from the first
predefined condition and the third predefined
condition, automatically concurrently displaying
on the touch screen display
a first group icon that corresponds to the
first group of user interface objects without
concurrently displaying objects in the first
group of user interface objects, and
objects in the second group of user interface
objects,
while maintaining the data files that
correspond to the first group of user
interface objects in the first file system
folder and the data files that correspond to
the second group of user interface objects in
the second file system folder; and
in response to the device determining that the first
group and the second group meet the third
predefined condition, distinct from the first
predefined condition and the second predefined
condition, automatically concurrently displaying
on the touch screen display
3
Appeal 2015-000371
Application 11/961,760
the first group icon that corresponds to the
first group of user interface objects without
concurrently displaying objects in the first
group of user interface objects and
a second group icon that corresponds to the
second group of user interface objects
without concurrently displaying objects in
the second group of user interface objects
while maintaining the data files that
correspond to the first group of user
interface objects in the first file system
folder and the data files that correspond to
the second group of user interface objects in
the second file system folder,
wherein the first, second, and third predefined conditions
are each based on at least one of the number of objects in
the first group of user interface objects and the number of
objects in the second group of user interface objects.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 33—35, 38, 39, 41—43, 46, 47,
and 49-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Evans et al.
(US 2006/0242164 Al, pub. Oct. 26, 2006) (“Evans”) and Yiping Ye et al.,
Motorola, Inc., Dynamic Folder Creation to Ease Navigation (May 25,
2004) (“Ye”). (Non-Final Act. 3-8.)
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 36, 37, 44, and 45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Evans, Ye, and McGee et al. (US
6,772,173 Bl, issued Aug. 3, 2004) (“McGee”). (Non-Final Act. 9-11.)
The Examiner rejected claims 24, 40, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Evans, Ye, and FingerWorks, Inc., Quick
Reference Guide for TouchStream ST/LP (2003). (Non-Final Act. 11—12.)
4
Appeal 2015-000371
Application 11/961,760
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue3:
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Evans and
Ye teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations:
automatically displaying objects associated with the first group
and the second group in response to the device determining that
the first group and the second group meet predefined
conditions ....
wherein the first, second, and third predefined conditions are each
based on at least one of the number of objects in the first group of
user interface objects and the number of objects in the second
group of user interface objects.
The same issue pertains to commensurate limitations recited in independent
claims 35, 43, and 51. (App. Br. 5—15.)
ANALYSIS
For the limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in
Evans of the ability of a user to invoke via navigation panels predefined
views of links to different files, lists, and folders based on user-assigned
keywords and other properties. (Non-Final Act. 3—7; Evans Figs. 6, 19-25,
1171, 72, 146—149, 156, 159.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 12, 2014); the Reply
Brief (filed Oct. 1, 2014); the Non-Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 9,
2013); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Aug. 1, 2014) for the respective
details.
5
Appeal 2015-000371
Application 11/961,760
Ye of automatically creating folders based on predefined rules, including
“[i]f there is more than one instance for a node type under its parent node
and this node type is not the only node type under its parent node, a folder
will be automatically created to contain all the instances of this node type.”
(Non-Final Act. 5—7; Ye Fig. 4, p. 2.)
Appellants argue the references, whether taken alone or in
combination, do not teach or suggest automatically displaying objects
associated with groups in response to the number of objects in the groups.
(App. Br. 24—25, 29—30.) In response the Examiner broadly defines
“automatically”: “Automatically displaying could be interpreted broadly to
mean displaying by machine.” (Ans. 17.) The Examiner finds Evans
automatically displays the various groups and objects under this
construction. (Ans. 21.) The Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Ye
of “folder creation based upon on or more criteria which may include as an
example the number of child instances and child instance type.” (Ans. 19.)
To the extent the display of groups and objects in Evans can be
characterized as “automatic,” such automatic operation is in response to a
user selecting certain navigation combinations in a navigation panel. (E.g.,
Evans Fig. 8,1102.) We find no teaching or suggestion in Evans of
displaying different arrangements of groups or objects in response to the
number of objects in the groups in the manner required by the claims. In
addition, as Appellants argue, although Ye discloses automatic creation of
folders in response to object count, there is no teaching or suggestion of
automatically selecting display arrangements of existing folders and objects
in response to object count. (App. Br. 29.) We are persuaded the Examiner
6
Appeal 2015-000371
Application 11/961,760
has not sufficiently explained how the combination of Evans and Ye teaches
or suggests the claim limitations at issue.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not
provide prima facie support for the rejections. “[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.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, on the record before us, we are
constrained to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1,35,
43, and 51 as obvious.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1, 35, 43, and 51 over Evans and Ye.
We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 4, 5, 33,
34, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46, 47, 49, and 50 over Evans and Ye, of claims 2, 3, 36,
37, 44, and 45 over Evans, Ye, and McGee, and of claims 24, 40, and 48
over Evans, Ye, and FingerWorks, which claims are dependent from claims
1, 35, or 43.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 24, and 33—51.
REVERSED
7