Ex Parte Nurmi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2016

12497977 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/497,977 0710612009
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
04/18/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mikko Antero Nurmi
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
P2665USOO 7570
EXAMINER
RIEGLER, PATRICK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKKO ANTERO NURMI and OLEG KOZITSYN 1
Appeal2014-003188
Application 12/497,977
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003188
Application 12/497,977
Introduction
Appellants' Specification discusses embodiments that associate state
information of applications (in particular, applications known as widgets that
provide basic components of graphical user interfaces ( GUis)) with content
and actions. See Spec. Title and i-fi-f l---6. Claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 are
illustrative of the subject matter at issue on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
specifying a hierarchy of content, actions, or both to be
presented, executed, or both by a first application based on state
information of a second application; and
storing the hierarchy in an association framework.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a notification of a change in the state information of
the second application;
querying the association framework for the content, actions, or
both to be presented, executed, or both by the first application based
on the change; and
initiating presentation, execution, or both of the queried
content, actions, or both by the first application.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
initiating update of the state infonnation of the first application
based on the queried content, actions, or both.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the hierarchy is specified
according to an importance factor defined between the content,
actions, or both of the first application and the state information of the
second application.
App. Br. 14--15 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2014-003188
Application 12/497,977
Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Forstall et al. (US 2007/0101291 Al; May 3 2007). Final Act. 3-7.
ANALYSIS
Appellants present separate arguments for claims 1-3 and 6, see App.
Br. 8-12, and our analysis substantively addresses those claims.2 Unless
otherwise indicated in our discussion below, we agree with, and adopt as our
own, the Examiner's findings and reasons for the rejection of claims 1-3.
See Ans. 3-7 and Final Act. 3--4. We do not adopt the Examiner's findings
for the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because
F orstall' s "mere linking of widgets based on certain criteria (or no criteria),
is substantially different from specifying a hierarchy of content, actions, or
both to be presented or executed by a first application based on state
information of a second application." App. Br. 9. Appellants contend
"Forstall merely suggests that the linking of widgets represents a connection
between the widgets, but certainly [makes] no mention of [] an order or
ranking," and that Forstall's "mere 'list of candidate widgets' does not
explicitly teach a hierarchy of actions (or content)" because it "could be a
mere grouping without regards to any hierarchy." Id. at 10. Appellants also
contend "all of the factors (time, date, place, etc.) taught by Forstall" are not
the claimed "state information." Id.
2 We group each of the remaining claims with one of claims 1-3 and 6 based
on Appellants' arguments.
3
Appeal2014-003188
Application 12/497,977
The Examiner answers that, based on Appellants' Specification, "a
hierarchy can be interpreted as merely a list of assignments of specific
content and/or actions pertaining to two widgets." Ans. 3. The Examiner
further finds that F orstall' s "widget linking trigger event is defined for
example as 'generated (e.g., by a dashboard server) in response to the
downloading, installation, previewing, launching, updating, manipulation,
operation and/or interaction with a widget (Forstall, [0095]), "'and such
events are states of the widgets. Id. at 4. The Examiner explains
that the generated list of candidate widgets to potentially be linked
with a first widget is at least equivalent to the specifying a hierarchy
of actions to be executed by a first application based on state
information of a second application, the first application being
equivalent to the process that specifies and subsequently links
widgets.
Id. (further finding Forstall's disclosure that "widgets can be linked at
several levels and conceptually organized into a widget hierarchy" (i-f 88)
supports the Examiner's position).
Appellants, in reply, maintain that Forstall's linking of widgets
substantially differs from the claimed "specifying a hierarchy ... based on
state information of a second application" and that Appellants'
"specification clearly describes a hierarchy as a framework that associates
specific content and actions available from a widget with the state
information of another widget" (referencing i1i150-53). Reply 3 (emphasis
omitted).
That Forstall does not verbatim describe "a hierarchy of actions" or
"state information" is of no import. Cf In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N. V. v. U.S. Int'! Trade Comm 'n, 808 F.2d
1471, 1479, n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (interpretation of references "is not an
4
Appeal2014-003188
Application 12/497,977
'ipsissimis verbis' test"); Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus.,
Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("[a] reference ... need not
duplicate word for word what is in the claims"); Kennametal, Inc. v.
Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
("However, a reference can anticipate a claim even if it 'd[ oes] not
expressly spell out' all the limitations arranged or combined as in the
claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would 'at once
envisage' the claimed arrangement or combination.") (quoting In re
Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA1962)).
We agree with the Examiner that, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, in view of Appellants' Specification, "hierarchy" is a broad
his~nHT_by ("any system of persons or things ranked one above another") and
~'.'L~:~:_:-:~:J1L~~,-~'.Q_rnLhismlr_(_hJ:'. ("a graded or ranked series"), both last accessed
Apr. 6, 2016). Ans. 3-5. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner's finding that Forstall i-fi-188 and 96 disclose its candidate widget
list can be a hierarchy. Ans. 4--5; see also Forstall i-fi-152 (configuration bar
including widgets can be "hierarchically organized") and 64 ("widgets may
be arranged hierarchically" by various categorization methodologies).
Appellants also do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that
Forstall discloses states of applications, such as a widgets being in the state
of not yet installed or launched, etc. See Ans. 4.
We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18,
and 20 together with claim 1, see App. Br. 8 & 10, presenting no separate
arguments, and we thus also sustain the rejection of those claims.
5
Appeal2014-003188
Application 12/497,977
Claim 2
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 2 because
Forstall "fail[s] to remotely disclose or suggest receiving a notification of a
change of any state information of a second application." App. Br. 11 (also
contending "the Examiner, in the Final Office Action, seemingly ignores the
claimed step of querying ... based on a change in state information of
second application").
The Examiner answers by finding Forstall's "state information of
widgets triggers the generation of the list of candidate widgets" (which in
other words means an occurrence of a trigger event reflects a change in state
information) and thus Forstall discloses claim 2's "receiving a notification of
a change in the state information" requirement. 3 Ans. 5---6. The Examiner
further finds that F orstall' s determination of linking information "stored (and
retrieved) as dashboard configuration information 304 ... is equivalent to
querying the association framework (Forstall, Figure 3, [0096]-[0098])." Id.
at 6.
Appellants reply that
[t]he Examiner's assertion that because Forstall describes detecting a
trigger event, it can be assumed that Forstall describes receiving a
notification, is unreasonable. The act of detecting a trigger event
cannot reasonably correspond to a step of receiving a notification, and
certain not a step of receiving a notification of a change in the state
information of a second application, in the manner claimed.
Reply 4--5.
3 The Examiner also states "the language of claim 2 is merely repeating the
same steps as claim 1." Ans. 5. We disagree with this statement. This is a
harmless error, however, because the Examiner nevertheless makes explicit
findings, with which we agree, for how Forstall discloses the elements of
claim 2. Id. at 5-6.
6
Appeal2014-003188
Application 12/497,977
The Examiner's findings persuade us that Forstall discloses the added
requirements of claim 2. Appellants do not explain why detecting a trigger
event does not fall within the scope of receiving a notification. Detecting an
event requires noticing the occurrence of the event. Appellants do not
persuade us that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, in view of
Appellants' Specification, the claimed "receiving a notification" precludes
noticing an occurrence of an event as shown in Forstall.
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 2, and along with it the
rejection of claim 9, which Appellants argue together with claim 2, see App.
Br. 11.
Claim 3
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 3 based on
Forstall i-f 102 because it "does not teach or suggest initiating an update of
state information of a first application" as recited in the claim, rather it
"simply describes a process 600 that monitors a link status (610) for
changes, and if changes are detected, the process 600 modifies the link
information as appropriate." App. Br. 11. The Examiner answers that
Forstall's "automatic widget linking process (first application) queries the
dashboard (association framework) for link information to create a list of
candidate widgets (construable as an update to the state information of the
first application)" and the "link information and subsequent generation of a
candidate list of widgets for linking is at least equivalent to an updating of
the state information of the first application based on the queried content,
actions, or both." Ans. 7 .4 Appellants reply that "Forstall is conspicuously
4 The Examiner's findings include reference to Forstall i-f 69, which states
"[t]he position, state, and configuration of a widget are preserved when the
7
Appeal2014-003188
Application 12/497,977
silent with regards to" the requirements of claim 3, without otherwise
addressing the Examiner's findings (beyond verbatim restating Appellants'
previous argument, which simply paraphrases Forstall i-f 102) and asserts
Forstall does not teach the claim requirement. Reply 5.
Appellants' argument that Forstall is "silent with regards to" or "does
not teach" the recitation of claim 3 does not persuasively rebut the substance
of the Examiner's specific findings. We agree with the Examiner that
F orstall' s disclosure of using retrieved state information of widgets from the
dashboard as part of its automatic linking process, which then updates the
states of the widgets, discloses the claimed requirements. We accordingly
sustain the rejection of claim 3, and along with it the rejection of claim 10,
which Appellants argue together with claim 3, see App. Br. 11, and claim
17, which Appellants argue together with claims 2 (see supra) and 3, see
App. Br. 11.
Claim 6
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 6 because
"whether the alleged widgets of Forstall are linked does not teach that the
dashboard (the alleged hierarchy) is specified according to an importance
factor defined between the content, actions, or both of the first application
and the state information of the second application." App. Br. 11-12. The
Examiner answers "[t]he claimed importance factor is broad enough to be
interpreted as one of two values; yes, link a certain two widgets together, or
no, do not link certain widgets together." Ans. 7. The Examiner further
dashboard layer 402 is dismissed, so that these characteristics are restored
the next time the dashboard layer 402 is activated." We note that in addition
to supporting the Examiner's proposition, this clearly describes storage of
state information of widgets (second applications).
8
Appeal2014-003188
Application 12/497,977
explains "how important one action from another is would be subjective
unless defined by the claim. Therefore, it is interpretable that if a widget is
linked by the automatic widget linking process, then it was important
enough to be linked." Id. at 8. We disagree with the Examiner's finding
that a widget's attribute of being linked or unlinked in Forstall is equivalent
to the claimed importance factor; the explanation that "if a widget is linked
... then it was important enough to be linked" is simply a tautology. Nor
does it explain how Forstall's linking of widgets teaches "the hierarchy is
specified according to" the importance factor as recited in the claim. We
agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings do not establish a prima
facie case for how Forstall discloses specifying the hierarchy according to
the importance factor as recited in claim 6.
We accordingly do not sustain the rejection of claim 6, nor do we
sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 19, which include the same
requirements as, and which Appellants argue together with, claim 6 (see
App. Br. 11 ).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12,
14--18, and 20 is affirmed, and the rejection of claims 6, 13, and 19 is
reversed. 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-IN-PART
9