Ex Parte Macho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13723746 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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.
13/723,746 12/21/2012 DUSAN MACHO CM15821 2233
22917 7590 02/01/2017
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
500 W. Monroe
43rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60661
EXAMINER
JACOBS, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
U S Adocketing @ motorolasolutions. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DUSAN MACHO, KENNETH W. DOUROS, and
SAMEER B. TOTEY
Appeal 2016-000251
Application 13/723,746
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—7, 10-20, and 22—38.
Claims 2, 8, 9, and 21 have been canceled. See Br. 13—20 (Claims App’x).
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Motorola Solutions,
Inc. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-000251
Application 13/723,746
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to the multi-dimensional,
graphical representation of search queries and results. Spec., Title; 1:6—7.
Claims 1 and 16, which are representative, read as follows:
1. A method for graphically formulating a search query, the
method comprising:
displaying a multi-dimensional graphical representation of
a search query space, wherein the graphical representation of the
search query space comprises a first axis having units of time and
a second axis having units of location;
receiving a plurality of parameters from a user, wherein
the parameters define the search query space;
positioning and sizing a multi-dimensional icon in the
multi-dimensional representation of the search query space such
that the multi-dimensional icon covers a period of time and a
location to be searched;
associating a keyword with the icon, wherein the icon
contains the keyword and the keyword identifies the search
query; and
generating a search query based on the one or more of the
keyword and multimedia content, and the position and size of the
icon in the multi-dimensional representation of the search query
space.
16. A method for graphically displaying results of a database
search, the method comprising:
retrieving search-related multi-media content from one or
more databases based on a search query; and
displaying the search results in a multi-dimensional
graphical format on a display screen, wherein the retrieved
multimedia content is displayed as one or more icons positioned
in a multi-dimensional graph having a plurality of axes, wherein
2
Appeal 2016-000251
Application 13/723,746
a first axis has units of time and a second axis has units of
location and wherein an associated time and location of the icon
defines a time and location of the search, and wherein the icon
contains the keyword and the keyword identifies the search
query, and wherein the icon is highlighted upon a positive search
result.
Rejections
Claims 1, 3—7, 20, 22—26, 31, 33, and 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of White et
al. (US 2010/0332466 Al, published Dec. 30, 2010) (“White”); Hibino and
Rundensteiner, MMVIS: Design And Implementation Of A Multimedia
Visual Information Seeking Environment, Proceedings Of ACM Multimedia
96, 75-86 (1996) (“Hibino”); and Wright et al. (US 2007/0171716 Al,
published July 26, 2007) (“Wright”). Non-Final Act. 3—21.
Claims 10 and 27—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of White, Hibino, Wright, and Candelore
et al. (US 2008/0226119 Al; published Sept. 18, 2008) (“Candelore”). Non-
Final Act. 21—24.
Claims 11, 30, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of White, Hibino, Wright, and
Nishiyama et al. (US 2003/0174173 Al; published Sept. 18, 2003)
(“Nishiyama”). Non-Final Act. 24—29.
Claims 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of White, Hibino, Wright, and Shet
et al. (US 2013/0091432 Al; published Apr. 11,2013 (filed Oct. 8,2012))
(“Shet”). Non-Final Act. 29-31.
3
Appeal 2016-000251
Application 13/723,746
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of White, Hibino, Wright, Shet, and
Nishiyama. Non-Final Act. 31—33.
Claims 16, 17, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Nishiyama, Wright, White, and
Shet. Non-Final Act. 33^42.
Claims 18 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nishiyama, Wright, White, Shet, and
Hibino. Non-Final Act. 43—45.
Claims 19 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nishiyama, Wright, White, Shet, and
Pfleger (US 8,161,072 Bl; issued Apr. 17, 2012 (filed Nov. 20, 2009)).
Non-Final Act. 45—48.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of White,
Hibino, and Wright teaches or suggests “sizing a multi-dimensional icon in
the multi-dimensional representation of the search query space,” as recited in
claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of White,
Hibino, and Wright teaches or suggests “generating a search query based on
. . . [the] size of the icon in the multi-dimensional representation of the
search query space,” as recited in claim 1 ?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Nishiyama,
Wright, White, and Shet teaches or suggests “wherein an associated time and
4
Appeal 2016-000251
Application 13/723,746
location of the icon defines a time and location of the search,” as recited in
claim 16?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 20
Appellants argue independent claim 1 and commensurately recited
claim 20 together. Br. 7—10. Appellants set forth no independent arguments
with respect to claims 3—7, 10—15, and 22—34, which depend from claims 1
and 20. See id. Accordingly, claims 3—7, 10—15, 20, and 22—34 stand or fall
with claim 1.
Appellants contend the combination of White, Hibino, and Wright
fails to teach or suggest “sizing a multi-dimensional icon in the multi­
dimensional representation of the search query space,” as recited in claim 1.
Br. 7—8. Specifically, Appellants contend Hibino teaches adjusting a slider
and “[ajdjusting a ‘slider’ is not analogous to sizing a multi-dimensional
icon.” Id.
The Examiner finds White teaches positioning a multi-dimensional
icon in a multi-dimensional representation of a search query space.
Non-Final Act. 4 (citing White 123). The Examiner further finds Hibino
teaches displaying a slider for specifying a range of values. Non-Final
Act. 6 (citing Hibino 176). In addition, the Examiner finds Hibino’s slider
is displayed as a two-dimensional rectangle and, therefore, Hibino teaches
that the slider is a multi-dimensional icon, as required by claim 1. Ans. 5.
Moreover, the Examiner finds Hibino teaches the user can modify the
range of values by adjusting an endpoint of the slider. Id. The Examiner
reasons:
5
Appeal 2016-000251
Application 13/723,746
The graphical method of “sizing” a rectangular icon such
as used in the application’s drawings, for examination purposes,
is interpreted to mean moving at least one of its bordering edges
to specify a quantity that corresponds to the size.
The graphical method of “sizing” a rectangular “slider”
icon on a computer display monitor in Hibino Fig. 3 at p. 78 is
analogous, where the position of the slider button is moved to set
an endpoint of a rectangular “ruler bar” that is made to be either
shorter or longer to specify a quantity, as when setting speaker
volume by moving the slider button on a volume control slider
icon on a GUI.
Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and specifically, determine the
Examiner’s findings are reasonable and consistent with Appellants’
Specification. See Spec. 12:9—11; Figs. 4—6. Although Appellants contend
that “claim construction involves little more than the application of the
widely accepted meaning of ‘sizing an icon’ to the claim” and that “[w]hen
this is done, it is clear no reference, alone or in combination, teach[es] or
otherwise suggests the Applicant’s claim limitation of sizing a multi­
dimensional icon in the multi-dimensional representation of the search query
space” (Br. 8), Appellants fail to direct our attention to an explicit definition
within their Specification or any evidence showing the Examiner’s
construction to be unreasonable. Instead, Appellants’ Specification simply
states “[t]he user also may appropriately size the icon to indicate features of
a search query, for example, to depict a possible range of one of the
multidimensional parameters.” Spec. 12:9—11. Further, Figures 4—6 of
Appellants’ Specification depict the multi-dimensional icon as a two-
dimensional rectangle. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
6
Appeal 2016-000251
Application 13/723,746
Appellants also contend the combination of White, Hibino, and
Wright fails to teach or suggest “generating a search query based on . . .
[the] size of the icon in the multi-dimensional representation of the search
query space,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 8. More specifically, Appellants
contend Hibino’s teaching of adjusting a button or slider to specify a desired
range for a query filter does not teach or suggest generating a search query
based on the size of the icon, as required by claim 1. Id. at 9.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Hibino teaches that as users adjust any query filter (e.g.,
move an endpoint of a displayed slider), queries are incrementally specified
and refined and users see the direct correlation between adjusting values of
query parameters and the corresponding display of results. Ans. 7. We also
agree with the Examiner’s finding that:
A query that is “specified” is a query that is “generated.”
“Incrementally” specified is disclosed in Hibino as incrementally
changing the size of the slider filter icon by graphically moving
the slider button on the GUI, each sizing movement regenerating
the query with a change in a query parameter’s quantitative value
that corresponds to the quantitative size change.
Additionally, to produce a “display of results” requires
that a search query has been generated and executed.
Ans. 7. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 and claims 3—7, 10-15, 20, and 22—34, which fall with
claim 1.
7
Appeal 2016-000251
Application 13/723,746
Claims 16 and 35
Appellants argue claim 16 and commensurately recited claim 35
together. Br. 10—11. Appellants set forth no independent arguments with
respect to claims 17—19 and 36—38, which depend from claims 16 and 35.
See id. We select claim 16 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Accordingly, claims 17—19 and 35—38 stand or fall with claim 16.
Appellants contend the combination of Nishiyama, Wright, White,
and Shet fails to teach or suggest “wherein an associated time and location
of the icon defines a time and location of the search,” as recited in claim 16.
Br. 10. Appellants contend the applied references fail to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation because “simply annotating by placing ‘lines or other
shapes’ [as taught by Wright] in no way teaches or otherwise suggests mi
associated time and location of the icon defines a time and location of the
search.” Br. 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds
Wright teaches representing events within an X, Y, T coordinate space, in
which the X, Y plane represents the spatial domain (e.g., geographic space)
and the T-axis represents the temporal (e.g., time) domain. Non-Final
Act. 34—35 (citing Wright, Fig. 4; 191). The Examiner further finds Wright
teaches that geographic and time contexts are navigated through user input
events and that simultaneous spatial and temporal zooming can be used to
enable the user to quickly move to a context (e.g., time and location) of
interest. Non-Final Act. 35 (citing Wright || 86, 179). The Examiner
further finds Wright teaches an interactive search process and use of icons to
represent data objects and show data objects’ positions in the multi­
dimensional search space. Ans. 8 (citing Wright || 81—106). Thus, the
8
Appeal 2016-000251
Application 13/723,746
Examiner finds Wright teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation.
Appellants have not persuasively addressed the Examiner’s findings.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 16 and claims 17—19 and 35—38, which fall with claim 16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—7, 10—20, and 22—
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
9