Ex Parte Labrador

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

12425966 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
12/425,966 04/17/2009 Christopher LABRADOR 34346-US-PAT 3800
95866 7590 04/03/2017
Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P.L.
551 NW 77th street
Suite 111
Boca Raton, EL 33487
EXAMINER
PACK, CONRAD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
ptoboc a @ fggbb .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER LABRADOR
Appeal 2014-000024
Application 12/425,966
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-000024
Application 12/425,966
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The claims are directed to a changing selection focus on an electronic
device. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for changing selection focus discontinuously in
an electronic device, the electronic device comprising a selection
device for indicating selection focus, the method comprising:
displaying a first selection focus on a first predetermined
graphical item from a group of graphical items;
determining if an action on the selection device exceeds a
threshold amount; and discontinuously changing the selection
focus to a second predetermined graphical item from the group
of graphical items if the action exceeds a threshold amount,
wherein the second predetermined graphical item is at least one
of a graphical item preselected by a user to be a predetermined
graphical item or a graphical item from a group of most
frequently used graphical items.
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Laiho US 2002/0143741 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
Tsuk US 2003/0076301 A1 Apr. 24, 2003
Spalink US 2005/0119031 A1 Jun. 2, 2005
1 Throughout the decision, we refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed June 12, 2013) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sep. 16, 2013),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 2, 2013).
2 The Real Party in Interest is Research In Motion Limited.
2
Appeal 2014-000024
Application 12/425,966
Wroblewski US 2006/0250358 A1 Nov. 9, 2006
Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—3, 9—13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 (a) as being unpatentable over Tsuk and Spalink. Final Act. 2—8.
Claims 1, 5—8, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Laiho and Spalink. Final Act. 8—13.
Claims 4, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tsuk, Spalink, and Wroblewski. Final Act. 13—14.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—14)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—7) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Appellant contends that no combination of references teaches
discontinuously changing the selection focus to a second
predetermined graphical item from the group of graphical items
if the action exceeds a threshold amount, wherein the second
predetermined graphical item is at least one of a graphical item
preselected by a user to be a predetermined graphical item or a
graphical item from a group of most frequently used graphical
items
3
Appeal 2014-000024
Application 12/425,966
as recited in independent claim 1 and related limitations in independent
claims 12 and 16. App. Br. 18—19. Specifically, Appellant argues that
neither Tsuk, Laiho or Spalink in the grounds of rejection teach this
limitation. Id. Appellant characterizes Tsuk as teaching accelerated
scrolling that uses a real-time determination of the next data to be displayed
based on the factors during a user’s input and not a predetermined graphical
item or such an item based on the most frequently used graphical items. Id.
at 8. Appellant argues that Laiho describes only scrolling through entries in
an indexed list, which are not graphical items. Id. at 9. Laiho, Appellant
contends, teaches section-by-section scrolling or linearly accelerated
scrolling to the Nth entry, and not scrolling to predetermined graphical
items. Id.
Finally, Appellant contends that Spalink, which “provides the user
with the ability to arrange where these menu items appear on the display
relative to one another” does not address scrolling or “changing the selection
focus to a second predetermined graphical item” as recited in the claims. Id.
at 10. Appellant further argues that the Examiner imbues Spalink with
features greatly exceeding its teachings, by asserting that the combination of
Spalink, which allows a user organized set of graphical entries, with the
scroll or navigation disclosed in Laiho or Tsuk, reads on “discontinuously
changing the selection focus to a second predetermined graphical item from
the group of graphical items if the action exceeds a threshold amount,
wherein the second predetermined graphical item is at least one of a
graphical item preselected by a user to be a predetermined graphical item or
a graphical item from a group of most frequently used graphical items.”
Reply 3^4.
4
Appeal 2014-000024
Application 12/425,966
The Examiner answers that the broadest reasonable reading of
“predetermined” in “predetermined graphical item” includes the graphical
representations in Tsuk or Laiho, as these items are determined beforehand
and are graphical items, which include words or symbols. Ans. 4—5 (citing
dictionary definitions for “predetermined” and “graphic”). The Examiner
argues that:
Tsuk teaches a method for scrolling through portions of a data
set in which an item highlighted or otherwise distinctively
displayed is scrolled according to a speed of rotation from a
rotational input device and in which accelerated scrolling of a
certain increased number of units is activated when the speed of
rotation exceeds a threshold amount (see, e.g., Tsuk, paras. 13,
16, 40-42, 61, and 87—89 and Fig. 11). Laiho teaches a method
of scrolling in a list in which an entry of a first section is
highlighted or selected and the immediately following entry or
the first entry in the next section is selected based upon whether
a selector is actuated above a threshold (see, e.g., Laiho, paras. 8
and 43^46 and Figs. 3 and 4).
Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner that Tsuk and Laiho teach accelerated
scrolling or selection that involves changing the focus to predetermined
graphics based on the input dynamics (see Tsuk || 13, 16, 40-42, 61, 87—89,
Fig. 11) or sections of graphic items based on the selector actuating speed
(see Laiho Tflf 8, 43—46, Figs. 3 and 4).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument regarding Spalink.
Appellant vehemently disagrees with the Examiner’s determination
regarding the combination of the references (Reply 3—4), asserting that
merely moving around the graphical items on the menus of Tsuk or Laiho
as disclosed in Spalink does not teach or suggest the “discontinuous change
of focus” limitation. We agree with the Examiner, however, that:
5
Appeal 2014-000024
Application 12/425,966
Spalink . . . demonstrate[s] understanding in the art that an
interface may be provided in which list items such as items of a
menu may be personalized by a user such as by changing sorting
of the items or by otherwise reordering and grouping the items
(see, e.g., Spalink, paras. 3, 6, and 24—26). Spalink further
provides specific examples in which items may be ordered based
upon frequency of use (see, e.g., id., paras. 3, 6, and 23).
Ans. 6. The Examiner relies on the user’s reordering or grouping of items
based on frequency of use or context in in different environments as
disclosed in Spalink in combination with the scrolling in a discontinuous
(nonlinear) manner to predetermined items as disclosed in Laiho and Tsuk;
these combinations teach the “discontinuous change of focus” limitation in
the independent claims. Appellant’s argument criticizing Spalink because it
requires the user to select the menu to move or does not teach zooming,
ignores the Examiner’s combination of references as discussed above. See
App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument and evidence that
discontinuously changing the selection focus to a second
predetermined graphical item from the group of graphical items
if the action exceeds a threshold amount, wherein the second
predetermined graphical item is at least one of a graphical item
preselected by a user to be a predetermined graphical item or a
graphical item from a group of most frequently used graphical
items
as recited in independent claim 1 and related limitations in independent
claims 12 and 16.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1—3, 9-13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tsuk and Spalink; claims 1, 5—8, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
6
Appeal 2014-000024
Application 12/425,966
being unpatentable over Laiho and Spalink; and claims 4, 14, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuk, Spalink, and
Wroblewski.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7