Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2016

12554328 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/554,328 0910412009
58027 7590 11/14/2016
RC PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gyung Hye Yang
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.
P2932USOO 8294
EXAMINER
SAEED, USMAAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2016 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):
PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GYUNG HYE YANG, BONG HYUN CHO, JU YUN
SUNG, JEE YOUNG HER, EUN YOUNG LIM,
and JI YOUNG KW AHK
Appeal 2015-003103
Application 12/554,328
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1--4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19--26, 29, and 31. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16-18, 27, 28, 30, and 32-35
have been cancelled.
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-003103
Application 12/554,328
STATEMENT OF THE fNVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a digital contents
management method and apparatus for classifying and filtering contents
stored on a digital device (Abstract; Spec. i-f 3). Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A contents management method for a media management
apparatus, the method comprising:
displaying at least one first graphical user interface object
representing an external device connected to the media
management apparatus and second graphical user interface
objects representing contents stored in the connected
external device;
receiving a selection of a first or second graphical user
interface object of the displayed first and second graphical
user interface objects;
detecting an input drag of the selected graphical user
interface object; and
filtering, in response to detecting the input drag, the
displayed first and second graphical user interface objects
based on one or more attributes associated with the dragged
graphical user interface object.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Van der Meulen
Kennedy
Agarawala
Ozawa
US 2007 /0282908 Al
US 2008/0195863 Al
US 2009/0307623 Al
US 2010/0053408 Al
2
Dec. 6, 2007
Aug. 14, 2008
Dec. 10, 2009
Mar. 4, 2010
Appeal 2015-003103
Application 12/554,328
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19-22, 24--26, 29, and 31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Agarawala (Final
Act. 2-12).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Agarawala and Ozawa (Final Act. 12-
13).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Agarawala and Van der Meulen (Final
Act. 13-14).
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Agarawala and Kennedy (Final Act.
14--15).
ISSUES
35 US. C. § 102(e): Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19-22, 24-26, 29, and
31
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10,
12, 13, 15, 19-22, 24--26, 29, and 31, is not anticipated by Agarawala (App.
Br. 6-11 ). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Agarawala discloses
"detecting an input drag of the selected graphical user interface object" and
"filtering, in response to detecting the input drag, the displayed first and
second graphical user interface objects based on one or more attributes
3
Appeal 2015-003103
Application 12/554,328
associated with the dragged graphical user interface object," as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Agarawala's "sorting" and "grouping" actions are
performed in response to user interaction with a LassoMenu and not in
response to detecting input drag as recited (App. Br. 7). More specifically,
Appellants contend Agarawala teaches users select a display object by
"lassoing" the object (drawing a path that encircles the object) and once
lassoed, users are presented with a control menu from which the users may
select a menu item and adjust the associated parameter (id. at 8 (citing
Agarawala i-fi-188, 111-113)).
We agree with the Examiner that Agarawala discloses dragging
selected graphical user interface object that have attributes (Ans. 3;
Agarawala i124). We also agree Agarawala discloses a graphical user
interface to display objects representing an external device connected to the
virtual environment and further, Agarawala discloses graphical user
interface objects representing contents stored in the connected external
device (Ans. 3--4; Agarawala i-fi-123, 121, 122). Agarawala additionally
describes detecting an input drag of a selected graphical user interface object
(Ans. 4; Agarawala i-fi-124, 87).
However, we agree with Appellants that Agarawala does not disclose
filtering in response to the dragging (Reply Br. 4--5; App. Br. 8). More
specifically, the Examiner finds "dragging objects invokes LassoMenu
which allows filtering or segregating of objects by their attribute or
characteristics" (Ans. 5). Although we agree sorting or segregating of
objects based on an object attribute is a filtering process (Ans. 5), the
4
Appeal 2015-003103
Application 12/554,328
Examiner has not shown, nor do we readily find, this sorting or segregating
is performed "in response to detecting the input drag." Instead, Agarawala
discloses "one can further manipulate the pile contents with the LassoMenu"
once a pile is locked down (Agarawala i-f 111 ). Thus, although Agarawala
allows for filtering, the Examiner has not shown Agarawala discloses
"filtering, in response to detecting the input drag," as recited in claim 1.
Because the Examiner made an anticipation rejection and not an
obvious rejection, it is beyond the scope of our review as to whether it would
have been obvious to modify the features of Agarawala to arrive at the
recited claim.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has not shown
Agarawala discloses "filtering, in response to detecting the input drag, the
displayed first and second graphical user interface objects based on one or
more attributes associated with the dragged graphical user interface object,"
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 24. Dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19--22,
25, 26, 29, and 31, stand with their respective independent claims.
Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10,
12, 13, 15, 19--22, 24--26, 29, and 31under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for
anticipation by Agarawala.
35US.C.§103(a): Claims4, 15, and23
Claims 4, 15, and 23 depend from independent claim 1. The
Examiner has not shown Ozawa, Van der Meulen, and Kennedy,
respectively, cure the deficiencies of Agarawala. Accordingly, these claims
5
Appeal 2015-003103
Application 12/554,328
stand with independent claim 1. It follows, we cannot sustain the rejections
of claims 4, 15, and 23.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19-22,
24--26, 29, and 31under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Agarawala is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Agarawala and Ozawa is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Agarawala and Van der Meulen is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Agarawala and Kennedy is reversed.
REVERSED
6