Ex Parte Young et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

13184523 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/184,523 07/16/2011 DAVID YOUNG
36738 7590 04/27/2016
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
750B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
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.
201003746.01 1535
EXAMINER
LE, RONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID YOUNG, SABRINA TAI-CHEN YEH, and
STEVEN FRIEDLANDER
Appeal2014-006106
Application 13/184,523
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-12 and 14--20, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
INVENTION
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corp. App. Br.
2.
2 Claim 13 has been canceled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2014-006106
Application 13/184,523
Appellants' invention relates to user interfaces (UI) for audio video
display devices (A VDD) such as televisions (TVs). Spec 1. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reads as follows:
1. Audio video display device (A VDD) comprising:
processor; and
computer readable storage medium bearing instructions
executable by the processor to configure the processor to:
present on a display a grid of information panels, each
information panel presenting visual information pertaining to
respective audio video programs, the information panels being
scrollable in a first dimension but not in a second dimension
orthogonal to the first dimension;
receive a drag command in the second dimension;
determine that the drag command pertains to an
information panel representing content that is not a currently
selected video; and
responsive to the drag command and determination of
which information panel the drag command pertains, present on
the display a preview pane related to the information panel to
which the drag command pertains without selecting for
presentation video content represented by the information panel
to which the drag command pertains.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Smith et al. (US 2006/0156352 Al;
published July 13, 2006) and Kim et al. (US 2010/0180298 Al; published
July 15, 2010).
Claims 2 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kim, and Gusmorino et al. (US
7,712,034 B2; issued May 4, 2010).
2
Appeal2014-006106
Application 13/184,523
Claims 3, 6-7, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kim, and Zheng et al. (US
2009/0217210 Al; published Aug. 27, 2009).
Claims 4 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kim, and Istvan et al. (US
2006/0041926 Al; published Feb. 23, 2006).
Claims 5 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kim, and Reeves (US
2012/0084697 Al; published Apr. 5, 2012).
Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Kim, and Gossweiler et al. (US
2008/0162430 A2; published July 3, 2008).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Smith, Kim, and Shin et al. (US 2010/0299598 Al;
published Nov. 25, 2010).
Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Smith, Zheng, Shin, and Reeves.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-12 and 14--20 and the
evidence of record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2014-006106
Application 13/184,523
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Smith discloses all
elements of claim 1 (Final Act. 5---6 (citing Smith Figs. 3, 5, 12, 13, i-fi-13, 36,
39, 40, 45, and 69--70)), except the limitations "information panels being
scrollable in a first dimension but not a second dimension orthogonal to first
dimension," "receive drag command on second dimension," "determine drag
command pertain to an information panel representing content that's not a
currently selected video," "responsive to drag command and determine
which information panel the drag command pertains." Final Act. 6. For
these limitations, the Examiner relied on the disclosure in Kim. Id. at 6-7
(citing Kim Fig. 5B, i-fi-174, 118-19, and 144).
Appellants contend that the cited portions of Kim do not disclose "not
being able to scroll vertically[,] but only horizontally." App. Br. 5.
Appellants further argue that the Electronic Program Guide (EPG) disclosed
in Figure 5A "implies that the EPG grid may be scrolled up and down and
left and right, while the single row of Figure 5B, while being scrollable left
and right, does not preclude moving the row up and down and does not
preclude scrolling the EPG itself up and down to reveal further elements."
Reply 2.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites "the
information panels being scrollable in a first dimension but not in a second
4
Appeal2014-006106
Application 13/184,523
dimension orthogonal to the first dimension." App. Br. 10. The Examiner
found that Kim discloses "a touch scroll method or scroll bar 125, which is
shown in Fig. 5B as horizontally touch and scroll/drag command." Final
Act. 6. We agree with the Examiner that scroll bar 125 of Figure 5B of Kim
is depicted in a horizontal direction only. Moreover, Appellants' arguments
based on Figure 5A of Kim are not persuasive because the Examiner did not
rely on Figure 5A in rejecting claim 1. Kim distinguishes between the two
types of screens depicted in Figures 5A and 5B, respectively, and only the
screen depicted in 5A, not relied on by the Examiner, is described as having
a vertical axis. See Kim i-f 114.
Appellants further argue that Kim's disclosure of "vertical flicking"
does not implicitly preclude vertical scrolling. App. Br. 5 (citing Kim i-f
144). Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
Examiner's rejection. The Examiner relied on paragraph 144 of Kim in
finding that Kim discloses a "drag command," not for the limitation "the
information panels being scrollable in a first dimension but not in a second
dimension orthogonal to the first dimension." Final Act. 6-7.
Appellants next contend that Kim does not disclose "the presentation
of a preview pane related to the information panel to which the drag
command pertains," and argue that Kim teaches away from using drag/scroll
commands for preview. App. Br. 5---6. Again, Appellants' arguments are
not commensurate in scope with the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner
relied on disclosure in Smith, not Kim, for the limitation "presenting on
display a preview pane related to information panel to which command
pertains without selecting for presentation video content represented by
information panel to which command pertains." Final Act. 4. Moreover,
5
Appeal2014-006106
Application 13/184,523
Appellants attack Kim individually, even though the Examiner relied on the
combination of Smith and Kim as teaching or suggesting the disputed
features. See Final Act. 5-7.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Kim, in combination with Smith, teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1,
as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 14, which Appellants
argue is patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 6. We also sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18,
and 20, not argued separately.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, and 19
Regarding claim 6, Appellants contend that "[ n ]owhere do the relied-
upon portions of Zheng discuss how Zheng decides if a gesture in free
space is meant to be a drag command." App. Br. 7. Appellants make a
similar contention for claim 7, arguing that the cited portions of Zhang do
not teach or suggest a threshold length, "the length being relative to an
imaged portion of a viewer's body," as recited in claim 7. Id. at 8.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of error. With regard to
claim 6, the Examiner found, and we agree, that the system in Zheng "must
interpret certain human hand gesture (human motion) as a request to perform
a command, in addition for the system to correctly interpret and execute the
hand gesture (human motion) as a drag command from one predefined area
to the other," and that "one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a
certain threshold distance between the two areas must be predefined and met
in order for the system to function as intended." Ans. 5---6 (citing Zheng
6
Appeal2014-006106
Application 13/184,523
i1i121, 27, 35, and 43; Figs 3A, 4, 7). Regarding claim 7, the Examiner
found, and we agree, that
[i]n order for the system to correctly interpret and execute the
hand gesture as a drag command from one predefined area to the
other, a certain threshold distance between the two areas are
predefined and must be met, and the viewer being captured by
the camera must have created a motion gesture relative to a
portion of the viewer's body in order to meet the required
threshold.
Id. at 7. Appellants present no persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut
the Examiner's findings. See Reply 2-3.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Zheng, in combination with Smith and Kim, teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 6
and 7, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 16, and 19, not
argued separately.
Claims 10-12
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10
because the cited portions of Shin do not mention "animation," and, in Shin,
an object "being dragged and dropped simply moves as a complete unit
without any cognizable 'filling in,"' as claim 10 requires. App. Br. 8.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error. There is no
ipsissimis verbis test for determining whether a reference discloses a claim
element, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that the
disputed limitation is taught or suggested in at least view 403 of Fig. 4 of
Shin, which shows the spot where a finger is initially placed and how first
7
Appeal2014-006106
Application 13/184,523
menu page 211 is displayed on the area generated as the first widget page
111 is dragged downward. See Ans. 8 (citing Shin i-fi-136, 46, 48, and 74;
Fig. 4). In the Specification, Appellants describe that the preview pane "can
be animated to start at its top edge and grow or fill in downward on the
display 28 in concert with the viewer moving his finger down the touch pad
62 .... " See, e.g., Spec. 13. Appellants present no persuasive explanation
or evidence distinguishing the cited disclosure in Shin from the description
of animation in Appellants' Specification. See Reply 3--4.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Shin, in combination with Smith, Zheng, and Reeves, discloses
the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10,
as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 11 and 12, not
separately argued.
DECISION
The decision to reject claims 1-12 and 14--20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8