Ex Parte Setlur et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201713476615 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/476,615 05/21/2012 Vidya Raghavan Setlur 042933/417662 4746 10949 7590 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 EXAMINER BLAUFELD, JUSTIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2017 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 sptomail @ alston .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIDYA RAGHAVAN SETLUR and DAVID ALEXANDER DEARMAN Appeal 2016-004480 Application 13/476,6151 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6—11, 13—17, and 19-23, which constitute all claims pending in the application. Claims 5,12, and 18 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-004480 Application 13/476,615 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention The claimed invention relates to creating user groups in a computing environment, so that a user “may be able to easily select those users with whom he wishes to communicate without opening a dedicated application or accessing a particular program.” Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with the disputed limitations emphasized): 1. An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the processor, cause the apparatus to at least: provide for presentation of one or more visual representations in a first region of a display, each visual representation being associated with a user; receive an input moving a selected visual representation to a previously undesignated location outside of the first region, wherein the previously undesignated location is a location on the display that was previously unassociated with the execution of operations related to communication of information or contacts; and in response to receipt of the input moving the selected visual representation to the previously undesignated location, designate an area of the display that is larger than the selected visual representation and comprising the previously undesignated location to which the selected visual representation is moved for creating a group of users, such that further inputs received moving other selected visual representations from the first region of the display to the designated area cause the other selected visual representations to be added to the group of users. App. Br. 18 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal 2016-004480 Application 13/476,615 The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 8, 14, and 21—23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Canfield et al. (US 2007/0006094 Al; Jan. 4, 2007) (“Canfield”). Final Act. 6-8. Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 15—17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Canfield and Hayashi et al. (US 2007/0255807 Al; Nov. 1, 2007) (“Hayashi”). Final Act. 9-11. Claims 6, 7, 13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Canfield and Smarr et al. (US 2012/0110096 Al; May 3, 2012). Final Act. 11-13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Appellants argue independent claims 1, 8, and 14 as a group, App. Br. 6—9, and we choose claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Canfield is not directed to, and does not disclose, creating a group of users.” App. Br. 6. Appellants contend the “tear-off’ process in the instant messaging interface disclosed in Canfield is not the same as Appellants’ “creation of a 3 Appeal 2016-004480 Application 13/476,615 user group or ‘group of users,’” which Appellants assert is recited in the independent claims. App. Br. 8—9. We are not persuaded of error. First and foremost, as the Examiner finds, claim 1 does not recite (nor do the other independent claims) “creating a group of users” as Appellants allege. Ans. 2—3. Rather, the claim recites an apparatus with code configured to “designate an area of the display . . .for creating a group of users.” App. Br. 18 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). As described in Appellants’ Specification, Spec. 195, the actual creation of the group of users is a different step apart from “designating] the area of the display,” and is not recited in claim 1. Ans. 2. As the Examiner further finds, the recited limitation, “designate an area of the display ... for creating a group of users,” is disclosed in Canfield’s figures and accompanying description. Final Act. 7—8. Canfield Figure 8 is reproduced below. 800 505- 810 510 510a ..... i -E-.— 520 BQ Amerfca Onlj/ie _____________l___________________________ QM FWe Print yflrwtow Skjn On Wetp / Mat: ‘ Jr 1 Servicftg *}{gettings If Fgvorlle^ i| ' IS'-”-— ©e*" A 1 chaririais E SI ^ IWpe Keywords or Web Addressee Horafprf] f 2s!ll 1 III It it Kevwoid (1 FIG. 8 4 Appeal 2016-004480 Application 13/476,615 Figure 8 illustrates a client user interface including an instant messaging (IM) interface 525, sub-interface 526 for communicating with a particular user, and “interface tear-off element 520.” Canfield 1 76. Canfield discloses that the “sub-interface 526 . . . may be tom off from a UI 525 and may persist beyond active display of the associated UI 525.” Id. As the Examiner finds, Figure 8 (and similar Figures 9 and 12C) illustrates an “area of the display” (interface 525 and sub-interface 526) for creating groups of users, illustrated on Figure 8 as users such as “ChattingChuck” and “SurfmDiane.” Id.\ Final Act. 7—8. Moreover, Appellants admit, App. Br. 9, Canfield does disclose a “visual grouping” of tear-off elements and associated sub-interfaces, Canfield 1 80. Such visual grouping is an “area of the display.” Ans. 2. Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding Canfield discloses “designating an area of the display that is larger than the selected visual representation and comprising the previously undesignated location.” App. Br. 12. As the Examiner finds, however, Canfield discloses the foregoing elements in its description (and illustration) of “tearing off’ a user tab and designating a new area of the screen substantially larger than the prior tab. Ans. 4. Figure 9, for example, illustrates this tear-off, id., and is reproduced below. 5 Appeal 2016-004480 Application 13/476,615 Figure 9, like Figure 8, illustrates a client user interface including an instant messaging (IM) interface 525 for communicating with a particular user, and “interface tear-off element 522d.” Canfield 1 78. In Figure 9, however, the user has performed a tear off of tear-off element 522d, and a new area of the screen (526) is designated (shown as corresponding to user “SurfmDiane”), which is larger than the corresponding tab for SurfmDiane. Ans. 4. We, therefore, are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Ans. 4—5. Dependent claims 21—23 are not argued separately. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, 14, and 21—23 as anticipated by Canfield Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Regarding the rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, 19, and 20, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding a rationale or motivation to combine Canfield with Smarr. App. Br. 15. Appellants assert that combining 6 Appeal 2016-004480 Application 13/476,615 Canfield’s “instant messaging” concepts with Smarr’s “creation of social circles in a social networking application” is hindsight. App. Br. 15—16. We disagree. As the Examiner finds, both Canfield and Smarr “teach graphical user interfaces for users to communicate with each other utilizing drag-and-drop mechanics.” Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that a “person of ordinary skill in the art, having Canfield and Smarr before him, would see that Canfield could be improved by Smarr so that “the user could post an update about the aforementioned technical nuance to only a ‘coworker’ circle, and spare other contacts from seeing information that is irrelevant to them.” Ans. 6; see KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he obviousness analysis . . . can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). Moreover, Appellants describe the objectives of Canfield and Smarr in an overly narrow manner. App. Br. 15—16. As the Examiner finds, both are directed to graphical user interface improvement in social networking/communications applications. See Innovention Toys LLC v. MGA Entertainment Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322—23 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (motivation to combine may be found in references sharing the “same purpose,” “goal,” or “objective”). Regarding the remaining claims, Appellants argue only that the dependent claims are patentable for the same reasons as independent claims 1, 8, and 14, and that the additional references do not cure the deficiencies with respect to the anticipation rejection. We are unpersuaded of this argument, for the reasons set forth above. 7 Appeal 2016-004480 Application 13/476,615 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, 19, and 20 as obvious over Canfield and Smarr, and we sustain the rejection of claims 2-4, 9—11, and 15—17 as obvious over Canfield and Hayashi. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6—11, 13—17, and 19-23. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation