Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 2014

11840798 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

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. 11/840,798 08/17/2007 Hee-Young Lee 1235-394 1949 66547 7590 06/30/2014 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER TOPGYAL, GELEK W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2014 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 HEE-YOUNG LEE, CHUL-HWAN LEE, JIN-WOO JUNG, and HYUN-YOUNG MO ____________ Appeal 2012-0011670 Application 11/840,798 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEAN R. HOMERE, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-011670 Application 11/840,798 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a portable terminal capable of playing media files, and in particular, to an apparatus and method for controlling a media player running on a background. (Spec. 1:14-16). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus for controlling a media player running on a background in a portable terminal, comprising: an input unit including a key for controlling the media player; a media management unit for controlling an operation of the media player running on the background; and a control unit for controlling the media management unit to control the operation of the media player when the control unit detects an input of the key for controlling the media player and for determining whether the detected key input is a key input for controlling the media player or a key input for performing an inherent operation of the key according to a key input method. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Johnson (US 7,865,366 B2; Jan. 4, 2011) (Ans. 4-7). The Examiner rejected claims 7-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Johnson in view of Niemi (US 5,819,175; Oct. 6, 1998) (Ans. 7-11). Appeal 2012-011670 Application 11/840,798 3 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding Johnson teaches all Appellants’ claimed limitations (App. Br. 4; Ans. 4-6). Specifically, Appellants contend Johnson only discloses a media player function is performed—no determination is made between media functions and inherent functions (App. Br. 5). Thus, Johnson does not disclose a control unit determining whether a detected key input controls a media player or performs an inherent operation as claimed. Additionally, Appellants contend Johnson does not teach a media management unit for controlling the media player running on the background, as claimed (App. Br. 5-6). Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants’ contentions, we find the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner’s conclusions that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims 1-6 are anticipated by Johnson. For emphasis only, we provide the following. The Examiner finds Johnson discloses the control unit for controlling a media player and determining whether a detected key input is a key input for controlling the media player or for performing an inherent operation of the key (Ans. 4-6; 11-12). That is, the claim language does not require both instances be compared prior to determining one or the other input has occurred (Ans. 12). Rather, the claim merely requires the control unit determine whether the detected key controls the media player or the control unit determines whether the detected key performs an inherent operation. We agree with the Examiner that Johnson’s column 17, lines 41-46 discloses these features by teaching when a phone number from a metadata tag Appeal 2012-011670 Application 11/840,798 4 associated with the current media file is dialed (detected key input), the primary media output is interrupted (controlling the media player) while the call is made and resumes once the call is completed. This also supports the Examiner’s finding that the media player is therefore running in the background and that the control key controls the media player. That is, we agree with the Examiner that: Since the media player is in a paused/interrupted state, there is no output through the device, however, the media player is waiting in the background to resume output once the call is completed. Similarly, when the media player is running, the ability to receive/make calls suggests that in a typical CPU oriented system, being able to process multiple processes at a same time suggests that both programs are running in the background to handle multitasking. (Ans.12-13). Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-6 dependent therefrom and not separately argued. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 With respect to claims 7-15, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of each of these claims for the above reasons and those set forth in the Answer (Ans. 4-10; 13-14). Specifically, we agree with the Examiner finding Neimi’s ability to scroll through a menu of available functions, discloses “displaying a key setup screen” as claimed (Ans. 13). Additionally, Niemi selects a menu option to allow a user to assign a particular function to a key (Ans. 13-14). Appeal 2012-011670 Application 11/840,798 5 Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 15, and claims 8-14, dependent therefrom and not separately argues. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7-15 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) 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)(iv). AFFIRMED kme