Ex Parte Migos et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2019

13588411 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/588,411 08/17/2012
26183 7590 03/28/2019
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (APPLE)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles J. Migos
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
18962-0460001 I
Pl2321US1
CONFIRMATION NO.
2468
EXAMINER
KUTIJNDZIC, DINO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2019 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES J. MIGOS, DIEGO BAUDUCCO,
MARKUS HAGELE, JAY C. CAPELA,
GARY W. GEHIERE, ALEXANDER C. MACLEAN,
JACOB G. REFSTRUP, CHRISTOPHERE. RUDOLPH,
PETER W. RAPP, DAVID M. HALL, PETER G. BERGER,
SIMON A. WARD, STEVEN J. ISRAELSON,
MARK AMBACHTSHEER, PAUL ELSE TH,
ROGER ROCK ROSNER, and Y ANIV GUR
Appeal2018-005286
Application 13/588,411 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-15, 17-19, 21-23, 30-33, 35--44, 46-48, and 50-52, which
are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 5, 16, 20, 24--29, 34, 45, and 49 have been
cancelled.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. (App.
Br. 1).
Appeal2018-005286
Application 13/588,411
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed a graphical user
interface for authoring digital content (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of authoring content for a digital book, the method
compnsmg:
providing a textbook authoring tool to author a digital book;
providing a graphical user interface ( GUI) associated with the textbook
authoring tool, the GUI having a composition area;
receiving and displaying text from a text source within the composition
area;
receiving, by the tool, first authoring input selecting a container type
from one or more container types to be inserted in the composition area;
responsive to the first authoring input, inserting a particular container
of the container type within the text displayed within the composition area;
receiving, by the tool, second authoring input selecting content to be
inserted into the particular container;
responsive to the second authoring input, inserting the selected content
in the particular container;
receiving, by the tool, third authoring input selecting a user interface
element in the GUI for displaying, in the GUI, a layout mode interface for
configuring display of the inserted content and a user interaction mode
interface for determining subsequent reader interaction with aspects of the
selected content inserted in the particular container within the digital book
during display of the particular container of the digital book; and
2
Appeal2018-005286
Application 13/588,411
responsive to the third authoring input, displaying the user interface
element in the GUI.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Waldman US 2009/0172559 Al July 2, 2009
Nancy Conner and Matthew MacDonald, Office 2010: The Missing Manual
(2010) (hereinafter "Conner")
Herb Tyson, Microsoft Word 2010 Bible (2010) (hereinafter "Tyson")
innovativeteach, How to make Interactive Quizzes with PowerPoint,
Y ouTube (April 21, 2010) (hereinafter "innovativeteach")
TechSupp247, Inserting Objects Into Microsoft Word 2010, YouTube
(March 29, 2011) (hereinafter "TechSupp247")
WebAIM, Microsoft Word (August 2, 2011),
https://web.archive.org/web/20110802075019/http://webaim.org/technique
s/word/#alttext (hereinafter "W ebAIM").
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6-8, 10-13, 18, 30-33, 35-37, 39--42, and 47 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Conner,
Tyson, and Waldman (Final Act. 3-11).
Claims 9 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Conner, Tyson, Waldman, and WebAIM (id. at 11-12).
Claims 14, 15, 17, 19, 21-23, 43, 44, 46, 48, and 50-52 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Conner, Tyson,
Waldman, TechSupp247, and innovativetech (id. at 12-14).
3
Appeal2018-005286
Application 13/588,411
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and the
issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived (see MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv)).
ISSUE
35 USC§ 103(a)
Appellants contend their invention, as recited in claims 1--4, 6-8, 10-
13, 18, 30-33, 35-37, 39--42, and 47, is patentable over Conner, Tyson, and
Waldman (App. Br. 3-8). The issue presented by the arguments is whether
the Examiner has shown the combination of Conner, Tyson, and Waldman
teaches or suggests:
receiving, by the tool, third authoring input selecting a user interface
element in the GUI for displaying, in the GUI, a layout mode interface
for configuring display of the inserted content and a user interaction
mode interface for determining subsequent reader interaction with
aspects of the selected content inserted in the particular container within
the digital book during display of the particular container of the digital
book,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 13, 18, 30, 42, and 47
(App. Br. 3-8; Reply Br. 1-3). Specifically, Appellants argue "Waldman
describes how a 'user' may select/insert/edit dynamic content," but
"nowhere does Waldman describe or suggest allowing the user, who edits
the dynamic contents, to determine how a reader (or viewer) of the dynamic
content is permitted to interact with the dynamic content during the display
of the dynamic content" (App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 1-2). Appellants further
argue "Waldman is silent with respect to receiving input for displaying an
interface that determines only [interface] buttons are subsequently provided
to the user of the dynamic graphic" (Reply Br. 2).
4
Appeal2018-005286
Application 13/588,411
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Ans. 17; Final Act. 6),
and we agree, Waldman's "user interfaces [that] are provided for editing and
otherwise modifying [a] dynamic graphic" (Waldman ,r 28; see id. ,r,r 24--29,
Figs. 4--9) teach "a user interaction mode interface for determining
subsequent reader interaction with aspects of the selected content inserted in
the particular container within the digital book during display of the
particular container of the digital book." Specifically, in Waldman, a user
can "insert a dynamic graphic" into a presentation (id. ,r 28), e.g., inserted
dynamic graphic 402, as shown in Figure 4. "Once the new dynamic
graphic has been placed," the "user interfaces are provided for editing and
otherwise modifying the dynamic graphic" (id.), e.g., user interface 408B, as
shown in Figures 5 and 6. Dynamic graphic editing user interface 408B
includes interactive elements that edit the dynamic graphic, e.g., promote
button 2061, demote button 206K, add button 206L, remove button 206M,
and a text editing box (see id. Figs. 5-6; see also id. ,r 37).
We disagree with Appellants' argument that although Waldman "may
describe difficulties with modifying dynamic graphics," Waldman's
dynamic graphic user interface does not "determine how a reader (or viewer)
of the dynamic content is permitted to interact with the dynamic content
during the display of the dynamic content" (App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 1-2).
In Waldman, dynamic content is added; subsequent to that, Waldman
displays that dynamic content for a content editor who views and edits the
inserted dynamic content, as shown in Figures 4--9 (Waldman ,r 28). The
displayed dynamic content is interacted with via user interface 408B, having
promote button 2061, demote button 206K, add button 206L, and remove
5
Appeal2018-005286
Application 13/588,411
button 206M (see id. Figs. 5---6). Those subsequent interactions modify the
dynamic content being displayed to the content editor (see id.).
Further, Appellants' argument that "Waldman is silent with respect to
receiving input for displaying an interface that determines only the
PROMOTE, DEMOTE, ADD, and REMOVE 206M buttons are
subsequently provided to the user of the dynamic graphic" (Reply Br. 2) is
not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not limit how
interactions are determined or which interactions are determined.
Accordingly, Appellants' argument that Waldman does not disclose
"receiving input for displaying an interface that determines only the
PROMOTE, DEMOTE, ADD, and REMOVE 206M buttons are
subsequently provided to the user of the dynamic graphic," is unpersuasive
because the claim does not recite such a limitation.
Furthermore, to the extent Appellants contend that the combination of
Conner, Tyson, and Waldman does not teach "changing aspects of the
question area and the answer area inserted in a review container," as recited
in claims 13 and 42 (see App. Br. 6-7), and that the combination does not
teach "changing aspects of the received content and the one or more placards
included in the visual dictionary container," as recited in claims 18 and 47
(see id. at 7-8), Appellants provide no explanation or elaboration sufficient
to persuade us the combination fails to teach those limitations. In particular,
Appellants do not address the Examiner's conclusion, with which we agree,
that those limitations would have been obvious over the combination of
Conner, Tyson, and Waldman (Final Act. 11 ). Nor do Appellants address
the Examiner's finding, with which we agree, that the differently
6
Appeal2018-005286
Application 13/588,411
"name[ d]/label[ ed]" containers described by the combination of Conner,
Tyson, and Waldman teach the recited containers (see Ans. 19-21).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner fails to show the
combination of Conner, Tyson, and Waldman teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in claims 1, 13, 18, 30, 42, and 47. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 13, 18, 30, 42, and 47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conner, Tyson, and Waldman. We
likewise sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2--4, 6-12,
14, 15, 17, 19, 21-23, 31-33, 35--41, 43, 44, 46, 48, and 50-52 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) because Appellants offer no additional persuasive
arguments for patentability (see App. Br. 8-9).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, 10-13, 18, 30-33, 35-
37, 39--42, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Conner, Tyson, and Waldman is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Conner, Tyson, Waldman, and WebAIM is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 14, 15, 17, 19, 21-23, 43, 44, 46,
48, and 50-52 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Conner,
Tyson, Waldman, TechSupp24 7, and innovativetech is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a). See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7