Ex Parte Zheng

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 2016

13338896 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/338,896 12/28/2011 97291 7590 05/03/2016 Huawei Technologies Co,, Ltd, c/o Wenjun Gu (Huawei ID 00229515) Building G 1-2, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen, 518129 CHINA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dandan Zheng 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. 81390414US05 8285 EXAMINER ZHAI,KYLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/03/2016 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): uspatent@huawei.com shiming.wu@huawei.com ltian@huawei.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANDAN ZHENG Appeal2014-008703 1 Application 13/338,896 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. PERCURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, and 8. Br. 4. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 have been canceled. Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 3 5 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appellant's Invention Appellant's invention is directed to a method and apparatus for displaying user selected pictures on an interface. See Abstract. After 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Br. 2. Appeal2014-008703 Application 13/338,896 determining whether a vacant position exists on the current display screen for a user-selected picture, a picture is placed in the vacant position if it exists. Otherwise, the picture is placed at the boundary between displayed pictures for a set time to cause the displayed pictures to be pushed, and to thereby create a vacant position for placement of the user-selected picture. See Spec. i-fi-128, 29, and 33-36, Fig. 2. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 3 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 3. A method for displaying an interface, comprising: obtaining display information of a current display screen; determining, according to the display information, whether a vacant position exists on the current display screen; if the vacant position exists, determining, a position information and an available size of the vacant position where a picture of a different size is to be displayed; arranging the picture to be displayed at the vacant position corresponding to the position information, \~1herein the vacant position corresponds to the determined available size which is sufficient only for the picture of the different size to be displayed on the current display screen, if no vacant position exists, dragging the picture to be displayed to a boundary between other displayed pictures and letting the picture stay for a set time, so as to cause the other displayed pictures to move toward other directions away from the picture of the different size to be displayed, and to set aside a position with sufficient room to accommodate only the picture of the different size to be displayed in the current display screen, otherwise move towards other directions to set aside a position of a new screen for the picture of the different size, and to obtain the position information of the picture of the different size to be displayed. 2 Appeal2014-008703 Application 13/338,896 Prior Art Relied Upon Bae et al. US 2008/0195961 Al Aug. 14, 2008 ("Bae") Chaudhri et al. US 2009/0058821 Al Mar. 5, 2009 ("Chaudhri") Herz et al. US 2009/0178008 Al July 9, 2009 ("Herz") Kuo US 2010/0185980 Al July 22, 2010 Rejection on Appeal Appellant requests review of the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bae, Chaudhri, Herz, and Kuo. Final Act. 4--10. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4--8. 2 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bae, Chaudhri, Herz, and Kuo teaches or suggests "determining ... an available size of the vacant position where a 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 28, 2014) (Br.) and the Answer (mailed May 21, 2014) (Ans.) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal2014-008703 Application 13/338,896 picture of a dij)erent size is to be displayed ... ij" no vacant position exists, dragging the picture to be displayed to a boundary between other displayed pictures and letting the picture stay for a set time," as recited in independent claim 3? (Emphasis added). Appellant argues the proffered combination of references does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. Br. 4--6. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellant's contentions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. See Ans. 4--6. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellant first argues Herz does not teach the claimed determining an available size of the vacant position. Br. 4--5. The parties agree Herz teaches the size of icons in the tray is reduced as more icons are added until a predetermined maximum number of icons is reached. See id. (quoting Herz i-f 312); see Ans. 4 (quoting Herz i-f 312). According to Appellant, icons in Herz can be moved into the tray as long as the predetermined maximum is not reached such that "it is unnecessary to and accordingly cannot possibly disclose determining the available size of the vacant position in the [tray]." Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). This argument is not persuasive. At the outset, we note Appellant's argument does not squarely address the Examiner's findings as set out in the Answer. In particular, the Examiner finds Herz teaches tray 408 contains smaller icons than area 802. Ans. 4 (citing Herz Fig. 11 S). We agree with the Examiner that Herz 4 Appeal2014-008703 Application 13/338,896 teaches determining the size of the remaining available locations in the tray 408 to determine how much to reduce an icon being moved from area 802 to the tray 408. Ans. 4--5 (citing Herz Fig. llS). Appellant argues Chaudhri does not teach the claimed dragging the picture to a boundary between other displayed pictures. Br. 5---6. According to Appellant, Chaudhri teaches that "the user drags a game icon from position 226 to position 228 which is initially occupied by a browser icon." Br. 6 (citing Chaudhri i-f 35, Figs. 2B-2D). Appellant further contends Chaudhri teaches a vacant position 230 on the display screen to which the browser icon is moved. Id. Appellant concludes Chaudhri does not teach "if no vacant position exists on the display screen," as recited in the claim. Id. We note Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's findings that Chaudhri teaches dragging the game icon to a boundary between two consecutive icons (i.e., the address book icon and the browser icon) when there is no vacant position between the consecutive icons. Br. 6 (citing Chaudhri i-f 35, Figs. 2B-2D); Ans. 5 (citing Chaudhri Figs. 2C, 2D). Likewise, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding that Kuo, not Chaudhri, teaches "whether a vacant position exists on the current display screen," recited in a different portion of the claim. Br. 6; Ans. 6 (citing Kuo i-f 23). Consequently, Appellant has therefore not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 3. Regarding the rejection of claim 4, Appellant argues Chaudhri does not teach a vacant position. Br. 7. According to Appellant, Chaudhri's disclosure of icons in the display area does teach extending the display area to display a game icon based on position 228 that is occupied by a browser 5 Appeal2014-008703 Application 13/338,896 icon. Br. 7 (citing Chaudhri Fig. 2C). This argument is not persuasive. In response, the Examiner relies on Bae to teach a vacant position on the display screen. Ans. 7 (citing Bae Fig. 5). The Examiner further relies on Chaudhri to teach extending the boundary between an address book icon and a browser icon in a set direction based on the vacant position 230 by moving the browser icon to the right to fill vacant position 230. Ans. 7 (citing Chaudhri Figs. 2C, 2D). We agree with the Examiner Chaudhri's cited disclosure teaches "extending, in a set direction based on the vacant position, a display area enough to display the picture to be displayed," as recited in the claim because the claim does not require the "display area ... to display the picture to be displayed" to be at the same location as the "vacant position." Id. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. Regarding the rejection of claims 7 and 8, because Appellant has reiterated substantially the same arguments (Br. 8) as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 3 and 4 above, respectively, claims 7 and 8 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 as set forth above. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6