Ex Parte LabradorDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201712425966 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation