Ex Parte Platzer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2016

11968051 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111968,051 12/31/2007
119082 7590 04/22/2016
Apple c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP SF
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2485
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew Emilio Platzer
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.
106842088600 (P4936US 1) 8111
EXAMINER
SIM, MATTHEW Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2016 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):
EOfficeSF@mofo.com
PatentDocket@mofo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW EMILIO PLATZER, STEPHEN 0. LEMAY,
MARCEL VAN OS, CORBIN ROBERT DUNN, and
FREDDY ALLEN ANZURES
Appeal2014-005234 1
Application 11/968,051
Technology Center 2600
Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1--49. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' "disclosed embodiments relate generally to portable
electronic devices, and more particularly, to portable devices that display
1 An oral hearing was held January 8, 2016. A transcript ("Tr.") from the
oral hearing was entered into the file on February 8, 2016.
2 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 6.
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
date and time information." Spec. if 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
at a portable multifunction device with a touch screen display,
displaying a date column comprising a sequence of
concurrently displayed dates, wherein a respective date in the
sequence of dates comprises a name of a month and a date
number of a day within the month;
displaying an hour column comprising a sequence of
concurrently displayed hour numbers;
displaying a minute column comprising a sequence of
concurrently displayed minute numbers;
displaying a selection row that intersects the date column, the
hour column, and the minute column and contains a single date,
a single hour number, and a single minute number, wherein the
date column, the hour column, the minute column, and the
selection row are persistently displayed;
detecting a gesture on the date column;
in response to detecting the gesture on the date column,
scrolling the dates in the date column without scrolling the hour
numbers in the hour column or the minute numbers in the minute
column;
detecting a gesture on the hour column;
in response to detecting the gesture on the hour column,
scrolling the hour numbers in the hour column without scrolling
the dates in the date column or the minute numbers in the minute
column, wherein the hour numbers form a continuous loop in the
hour column;
detecting a gesture on the minute column;
in response to detecting the gesture on the minute column,
scrolling the minute numbers in the minute column without
scrolling the dates in the date column or the hour numbers in the
hour column, wherein the minute numbers form a continuous
loop in the minute column; and
2
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
using the single date, the single hour number, and the single
minute number in the selection row after scrolling the dates, the
hour numbers, and the minutes numbers, respectively, as time
input for a function or application on the multifunction device.
App. Br. 76---77. Independent claim 2 is similar to claim 1, but omits the
limitations that the hour numbers and minute numbers form continuous
loops. Id. at 77. Independent claims 16 and 17 are similar to claims 1 and 2,
respectively, but omit the date column and corresponding limitations. Id. at
82-83. Independent claims 29 and 30 are similarly analogous to claims 1
and 2, respectively, but omit the hour and seconds columns and include
separate month and date columns. Id. at 87-88. Independent claim 24 is
similar to claim 17, but additionally recites a seconds column. Id. at 84.
Independent claim 44 is similar to claims 2, 17, 24, and 30, but generically
recites "at least three distinct columns" of "time related values" instead of
specific recitation of hour, minute, seconds, month, or date columns. Id. at
91-92. Independent claims 12; 25; 40; and 46 are directed to graphical user
interfaces on portable multifunction devices (MFDs) having the
combinations of columns recited in claims 2, 17, 30, and 44, respectively,
for time input for a function or application on the MFDs. Id. at 78-79, 84--
85, 89, 92. Independent claims 13-15, 26---28, 41--43, and 47--49 are
directed to the respective implementations in program instructions in a
portable MFD (claims 13, 26, 41, and 47); program instructions stored by a
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claims 14, 27, 42, and
48); and in various "means for displaying," "means for detecting," "means
for scrolling," and "means for using" (claims 15, 28, 43, and 49). Id. at 79-
82, 85-87' 89-94.
3
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 29, 37, and 38 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Molnar
(US 5,734,597; issued March 31, 1998), Murphy (US 2002/0093535 Al;
published July 18, 2002), Tojo (US 7,503,014 B2; issued March 10, 2009
(filed July 14, 2004)), and Kahl (US 5,428,736; issued June 27, 1995). Final
Act. 2-9.
Claims 2, 3, 12-15, 17, 24--28, 30, and 40-49 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Molnar,
Murphy, and Kahl. Final Act. 9-15.
Claims 4--9, 18-21, 31-36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Molnar, Murphy,
Kahl, and Wherry (US 2007/0236475 Al; published Oct. 11, 2007). Final
Act. 15-19.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants'
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
before us are as follows:
Issue One: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
combinations of references teach "[displaying] a selection row that intersects
the date column, the hour column, and the minute column and contains a
single date, a single hour number, and a single minute number, wherein the
date column, the hour column, the minute column, and the selection row are
persistently displayed," as recited in independent claims 1, 2, and 12-15, and
similar limitations recited in each of independent claims 16, 17, 24--30, 40-
44, and 46-49? See App. Br. 36-74.
4
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
Issue Two: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
combinations of references teach "in response to detecting [a] gesture on the
[date/hour/minute] column, scrolling the [dates/hour numbers/minute
numbers] in the [date/hour/minute] column" without scrolling the values in
the columns other than the one on which the gesture is detected, as recited in
independent claims 1 and 2, and similar limitations recited in each of
independent claims 12-17, 24--30, 40-44, and 46-49? See App. Br. 36-74;
Reply Br. 4--5.
Issue Three: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
combinations of references teach "using the single date, the single hour
number, and the single minute number in the selection row after scrolling the
dates, the hour numbers and the minute numbers, respectively, as time input
for a function or application of the multifunction device," as recited in
independent claims 1 and 2, and similar limitations recited in each of
independent claims 12-17, 24--30, 40-44, and 46-49? See App. Br. 36-74;
Reply Br. 2-3.
Issue Four: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
combinations of references teach displaying "a month column comprising a
sequence of concurrently displayed month identifiers" and "a date column
comprising a sequence of concurrently displayed data numbers," as recited
in independent claims 29 and 30, and similar limitations recited in each of
independent claims 40-43? See App. Br. 67, 69.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the Examiner's findings and Appellants'
arguments, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed February 6, 2013, the
5
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
Appeal Brief filed December 5, 2013, the Examiner's Answer mailed
January 14, 2014, and the Reply Brief filed March 14, 2014, for the
respective details.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions, adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final
Office Action and the Examiner's Answer, and concur with the Examiner's
conclusions. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Issue One
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants contend:
The Final Action at p. 4 concedes that Molnar does not
teach or suggest several features of claim 1, including:
(2) "displaying a selection row that intersects the date
column, the hour column, and the minute column and contains a
single date, a single hour number, and a single minute number,
wherein the data column, the hour column, the minute column,
and the selection row are persistently displayed."
App. Br. 37 (boldface omitted). Appellants further contend that Murphy in
combination with Molnar also fails to teach or suggest the above-quoted
"feature[] (2)," among others. Id. at 40. Appellants argue, in particular:
as described in Murphy, a respective "select character" display
window 1 ooi is presented for each group of characters, and the
user can select a character from only one of the multiple "select
character" display windows for input into the text entry field 120.
See e.g., Murphy [0052]. Thus, Murphy is not only unrelated to
the subject matter of Molnar, i.e., entering time and dates; in fact,
Murphy's design of selecting only one character at a time for
input from multiple character display windows 1001 ... 1 OOi (i.e.,
6
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
the alleged "selection row") teaches away from a "selection row"
"that intersects the date column, the hour column, and the minute
column," such that "the single date, the single hour number, and
the single minute number in the selection row after scrolling the
dates, the hour numbers and the minute numbers, respectively,
[are used] as time input for a function or application on the
multifunction device," as required by claim 1.
Thus, contrary to the Final Office Action's assertions,
Murphy cannot be combined with Molnar to teach or suggest
feature (2) "displaying a selection row that intersects the date
column, the hour column, and the minute column and contains a
single date, a single hour number, and a single minute number,
wherein the date column, the hour column, the minute column,
and the selection row are persistently displayed," as required by
claim 1.
Id. at 41--42. Appellants make substantially the same arguments with
respect to independent claim 2. Id. at 46, 50---51.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error. In the Final
Action, the Examiner finds that Molnar teaches, inter alia, a computer-
implemented method that includes displaying date, hour, and minute
columns, each comprising a sequence of values (i.e., dates, hour numbers,
and minute numbers, respectively); and displaying a selection window
containing a single date, a single hour number, and a single minute number.
Final Act. 3 (citing Molnar Fig. 2). The Examiner additionally finds that,
although Molnar does not expressly teach a selection "row" that intersects
the date, hour, and minute columns; displaying "a sequence of concurrently
displayed data"; or wherein the columns and the selection row are
"persistently displayed," Murphy teaches those further limitations. Id. at 4
(citing Murphy i-fi-132-36, 63, Fig. 1). We discern no error in the Examiner's
findings. We agree, in particular, that the cited portions of Molnar teach a
"date column" an "hour column" and a "minute column" as well as a
' ' '
7
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
selection window that "contains a single date, a single hour number, and a
single minute number" (see Molnar Fig. 2), whereas Murphy teaches a
selection "row" that intersects all columns of a selection window and
"persistent display" of the columns and selection row (Murphy Fig. 1; see
also id. i-f 55 (describing simultaneous display of "just passed," "select," and
"on-deck" characters)). 3 Because the Examiner finds this claim limitation is
taught by the combination of Molnar's and Murphy's teachings, with Molnar
specifically relied upon for the date and time elements, we are not persuaded
either by Appellant's argument that the Examiner conceded that "feature
(2)" is not taught by Molnar (App. Br. 37) or by Appellant's argument that
Murphy is "unrelated to ... entering time and dates" (id. at 41 ). One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
3 Although the Examiner relied on the same findings regarding Molnar and
Murphy with respect to the analogous limitation in independent claims 2,
12-17, 24--30, 40-44, and 46-49, we further note that Molnar, even without
Murphy, appears to disclose a selection "row," under a broad but reasonable
interpretation of that term, at least with respect to hours and minutes, as
recited in independent claims 16, 17, and 25-28; hours, minutes, and
seconds, as recited in independent claim 24; months and dates, as recited in
independent claims 29, 30, and 40-43; and three "time related values" (e.g.,
months, days, and years; or hours, minutes, and seconds) as recited in
independent claims 44--49 (see Murphy Fig. 2). Other than the descriptive
labels assigned, we discern no functional difference between displays of
date, hour, minute, and second values that would create a patentable
distinction between a row containing hour, minute, and second values, as in
claims 24, vis-a-vis a row containing date, hour, and minute values, as in
claims 1, 2, and 12-15. Cf Spec. i-fi-125-29, 146 (referring generically to
"time related values").
8
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Jn re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981).
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments that "'Murphy's
design of selecting only one character at a time for input from multiple
character display windows ... teaches away from a 'selection row"' and that
"the Examiner has not provided a properly articulated reason to combine the
references." App. Br. 42--45 (underlining and boldface omitted); see also id.
at 51-53; Reply Br. 5-8. We understand the portions of Molnar cited by the
Examiner to disclose selecting one of each of month, day, year, hour,
minute, second, and AM/PM values (see, e.g., Molnar Fig. 2). Although
Murphy discloses making selections from only one of several columns at a
time, we do not find that Murphy criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages making selections from multiple columns. See In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The prior art's mere disclosure of more
than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these
alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed."). Moreover, we find that the
Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with sufficient rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness of the claims
(see KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)), which
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted. See, e.g., Final Act. 4---6, 10-12,
15; Ans. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellants' suggestion that the
Examiner's citation of four references in the rejection of independent
claim 1 indicates that the proposed combination of references is the product
of impermissible hindsight reasoning. App. Br. 44. The skilled artisan is "a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton" (KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21),
9
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
and Appellants do not persuade us that the resulting combination, providing,
for example, that minute and hour columns should form continuous loops, as
in Tojo, and that a date column should include both the name of a month and
a date number of a day within the month, as in Kahl, would be "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an
unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
418-19); see also Final Act. 5.
Issue Two
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants contend:
The Final Action at p. 4 concedes that Molnar does not
teach or suggest several features of claim 1, including:
(3) "detecting a gesture on the date/hour/minute column,
and in response to detecting the gesture on the date/hour/minute
column, scrolling the dates/hour numbers/minute numbers in the
date column/hour column/minute column."
App. Br. 38 (boldface omitted). Appellants further contend that Murphy in
combination with Molnar also fails to teach or suggest the above-quoted
"feature[] ... (3)," among others. Id. at 40. Appellants argue, in particular:
Murphy does not teach or suggest the use of a gesture on the
display windows 100-1 OOi to scroll the characters displayed in
the display windows 100-1 OOi. See Murphy, [0046]. Instead, the
characters in the display windows 100-1 OOi are automatically
scrolled with a predetermined scroll rate, or are scrolled in
unison by a single "advance key" and a single "backup key." See
Murphy, [0046-52]. Murphy does not teach or suggest separate
gestures detected on the date column, the hour column, and the
minute column, respectively, that cause separate scrolling of the
10
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
date column, the hour column, and the minute column, as
required by claim 1 ....
Thus, Murphy, either alone or in combination with
Molnar, does not teach or suggest feature (3) ....
Id. at 42--43. Appellants make substantially the same arguments with
respect to independent claim 2. Id. at 47, 51-52. In the Reply Brief,
Appellants further contend, inter alia, that "the Examiner fails to show that
Murphy discloses or suggests scrolling the dates in the date column 'in
response to detecting a gesture' and 'without scrolling the hour numbers in
the hour column or the minute numbers in the minute column"' (Reply Br.
5); that "Murphy does not teach or suggest scrolling one column in response
to a gesture independently of the other columns, and it specifically teaches
against scrolling columns at different rates in response to any manual input"
(id.); and that "[a]ny depression in Murphy that might be applied on the
column is not used for scrolling, but solely to select for input the individual
character being displayed" (id. at 4).
Appellants' arguments are again not persuasive of error. The
Examiner finds in the Final Action that Molnar teaches:
in response to detecting an input on the date column,
scrolling the dates in the date column without scrolling the hour
numbers in the hour column or the minute numbers in the minute
column (Col. 4, lines 48 - 67; "The day spin button will accept
only those values that are accurate for each given month.");
in response to detecting an input on the hour column,
scrolling the hour numbers in the hour column without scrolling
the dates in the date column or the minute numbers in the minute
column;
detecting a gesture on the minute column; [and]
in response to detecting the gesture on the minute column,
scrolling the minute numbers in the minute column without
11
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
scrolling the dates in the date column or the hour numbers in the
hour column (Col. 5, lines 30 - 4 7)
Final Act. 3. The Examiner additionally finds that, although Molnar does
not expressly teach "a touchscreen and detecting a gesture to change[] date
and time numbers," Murphy teaches "a touchscreen and detecting gestures to
change ... object selection." Id. at 4 (citing Murphy i-fi-132-36, 63).
According to the Examiner,
taking the combined teaching of Molnar and Murphy, as a whole,
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to incorporate the idea of having a touch sensitive portable
multifunction device for detecting gestures to change the object
selection . . . as taught by Murphy into the method of changing
date and time data as taught by Molnar to obtain a computer
implemented method of detecting a gesture to change, date and
time numbers wherein a selection row intersects, date, hour and
minute column and displaying a sequence of concurrently
displayed data wherein the date column, the hour column, the
minute column and the selection row are persistently displayed
to allow a user to easily change date and time data while giving
portability.
Id. at 4--5.
We again discern no error in the Examiner's findings. Because the
Examiner relies on Molnar, not Murphy, for the teaching of detection of
separate input on the date column, the hour column, and the minute column,
respectively, that cause separate scrolling of the date column, the hour
column, and the minute column (see Final Act. 3), Appellants' argument that
Murphy does not teach or suggest that subject matter (App. Br. 42; Reply
Br. 4--5) is unpersuasive. Further, because the Examiner relies on Molnar to
teach scrolling in response to input and relies on Murphy with respect to this
limitation only for the teaching of touchscreen gestures as a form of input
12
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
(see Final Act. 4), Appellants' assertions that "Murphy does not teach or
suggest the use of a gesture ... to scroll ... characters displayed in the
display windows" and that Murphy's "characters ... are automatically
scrolled ... or are scrolled in unison" (App. Br. 42 (emphases omitted);
Reply Br. 4) are similarly unpersuasive. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097;
Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Issue Three
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that "Molnar fails to teach or
suggest 'using the single date, the single hour number, and the single minute
number in the selection row after scrolling the dates, the hour numbers and
the minute numbers, respectively, as time input for a function or application
on the multifunction device,' as required by claim 1." App. Br. 39 (boldface
omitted); see also Reply Br. 2-3. More particularly, although Appellants
concede that Molnar discloses a 'time control' consisting of 'three spin
buttons 113, 115, 117 each with its own spin button arrows 111 so that users
can easily adjust the [time/date] values," (id. (citing Molnar, 5:30-32, Fig.
2)), Appellants contend:
Because only a single date, hour, and minute number is
[sic] displayed in the user interface at any given time in Molnar,
Molnar clearly does not teach or suggest a "selection row" that
intersects the date column, the hour column, and the minute
column," with the columns and selection row being "persistently
displayed," as required by claim 1. Thus, the Final Office Action
has erred in asserting that Molnar teaches a feature ( 6) "using
the single date, the single hour number, and the single minute
number in the selection row after scrolling the dates, the hour
numbers and the minute numbers, respectively, as time input
for a function or application on the multifunction device"
required by claim 1.
13
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
Id. at 39--40. Appellants make substantially the same arguments with
respect to independent claim 2. Id. at 47--48.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. As cited by the Examiner
(Final Act. 3--4), Molnar at column 2, lines 10-12, explicitly states that "it is
an object of the invention to provide an improved graphical user interface
for inputting data and time data." Moreover, Figure 2 of Molnar, described
by Molnar as "depict[ing] one preferred graphical interface according to the
teachings of the present invention" (id. at 2:54--55), clearly illustrates, inter
alia, a single date, a single hour number, and a single minute number.
Appellants' counsel contended during oral argument that Figure 2 of Molnar
does not present a selection "row," because the illustrated single date is
presented in a different "box" in that figure than the single hour number and
single minute number (Tr. 21: 10-13 ). As explained in the discussion supra
of Issue One, however, the Examiner relies on Murphy for its teachings of a
selection "row" that intersects all columns of a selection window and of a
"persistent display" of the columns and selection row (see Final Act. 4
(citing Murphy Fig. 1, i-fi-132-36, 63)), and, for the reasons explained above,
we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's findings regarding those
elements. Moreover, because the Examiner relies on Molnar, rather than
Murphy, for the disclosure of the time-related elements of the claims,
Appellants' arguments that the references do not teach or suggest a selection
row for time input because Murphy "is not related to entering time or dates"
and because Murphy's "individual 'select character' display windows ...
are disparate user interface elements" (App. Br. 40--41) are similarly
unavailing. The rejections of each of the independent claims are based on
the combined teachings of Molnar and Murphy, in further combination with
14
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
other cited references, and we, accordingly, are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments that focus on either Molnar alone (App. Br. 39--40) or
Murphy alone (App. Br. 40--41). See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642
F.2d at 426.
Issue Four
For independent claims 29 and 30, Appellants rely, in part, on their
arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 2, as discussed above.
App. Br. 66-70. Appellants additionally contend, however, that claims 29
and 30 "differ[] significantly" from claims 1 and 2, respectively, because
they recite "displaying a separate 'month column' from a 'date column' that
respond to independent gesture controls," whereas claims 1 and 2 "recite[] a
date column that includes 'a sequence of concurrently displayed dates,
wherein a respective date in the sequence of dates comprises a name of a
month and a date number of a day within the month."' Id. at 67, 69.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the identified
distinction is patentably significant in light of the cited references. Indeed,
as cited by the Examiner, Figure 2 of Molnar illustrates separate month and
day spin buttons 105 and 107, respectively, that are separately adjustable
with their "own spin button arrows 111." See Molnar, 4:49-51, Fig. 2. The
Examiner found that the combination of Molnar and Murphy (further
combined with Tojo, in the case of claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 29, 37, and
38) "do[ es] not expressly teach wherein a respective date in the sequence of
dates comprises a name of a month and a date number of a day within the
month," and cited Kahl for that single element. Final Act. 5, 11. However,
because only independent claims 1, 2, and 12-15-and dependent claims 3-
15
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
11, which directly or indirect depend from claim 2-recite "name of a
month," the Examiner presumably could have omitted Kahl altogether from
the rejection of the remaining claims, including claims 29 and 30. That the
inclusion of Kahl in the recited combination may not have been necessary,
strictly speaking, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 29
and 30, is, however, not a basis for us to reverse the Examiner's rejections of
those claims.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1 and 29 as unpatentable over the combination of Molnar, Murphy,
Tojo, and Kahl, as well as the Examiner's rejection of claim 30 as
unpatentable over the combination of Molnar, Murphy, and Kahl. We also
affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejections of independent claims 2, 12-
17, 24--28, 40-44, and 46-49, for which Appellants rely on essentially the
same substantive arguments regarding Molnar and Murphy as for claims 1
and 30, as well as the rejections dependent claims 3-11, 18-23, 31-39, and
45, for which Appellants rely on their arguments with respect to the
independent claims from which those claims respectively depend. App. Br.
45---65, 68-74.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 29, 37, and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Molnar,
Murphy, Tojo, and Kahl is affirmed.
16
Appeal2014-005234
Application 11/968,051
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 12-15, 17, 24--28, 30, and 40-49 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Molnar,
Murphy, and Kahl is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4--9, 18-21, 31-36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Molnar, Murphy, Kahl,
and Wherry 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).
AFFIRMED
17