Ex Parte Alessi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2013

10342159 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/342,159 01/14/2003 INV001Mark A. Alessi 02DIS021CPUSUTL
820.020
8579
77755 7590 03/20/2013
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Ference & Associates LLC
409 Broad Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15143
EXAMINER
AMIN, JWALANT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte MARK A. ALESSI, ALBERTO GABRIEL MENDOZA PADIAL,
and HL COURTLAND WHITED
_____________

Appeal 2010-009531
Application 10/342,159
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009531
Application 10/342,159
2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-11, 21, and 24-35.1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for displaying an illustrated
book on a computer screen that includes magnifying the size of the text
without magnifying the graphic image. Spec. 2-4. Claim 1 is representative
of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method for displaying an illustrated book on a computer
screen, comprising:
displaying a graphics image, corresponding to a page in
the illustrated book, on the computer screen;
displaying a non-magnified text detail image defined as
at least one of a word balloon, a dialog balloon or a description
box on the computer screen, the non-magnified text detail
image being displayed as a layer on the top of and at least
partially covering the graphics image;
detecting a cursor rolling over the non-magnified text
detail image;
displaying a magnified image of the text detail image
when the cursor has rolled over the non-magnified text detail
image without adjusting the display of the graphics image on
the computer screen.

REFERENCES
Adegeest US 5,872,573 Feb. 16, 1999

Murata US 2002/0087555 A1 Jul. 4, 2002

1 Claims 12-20, 22, and 23 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2010-009531
Application 10/342,159
3
Minagawa US 2002/0122039 A1 Sep. 5, 2002

Rodriguez US 6,704,034 B1 Mar. 9, 2004

Bast US 2005/0114796 A1 May 26, 2005

Shiran, Yehuda, “Changing the Font Size on the Fly,” Aug. 21, 2000,
pp. 1-3.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, 21, 24-26, 29, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Murata,
Shiran, and Adegeest. Ans. 3-8.
Claims 4 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Murata, Shiran, Adegeest, and
Minagawa. Ans. 8-9.
Claims 5, 8, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Murata, Shiran, Adegeest, and Bast.
Ans. 9.
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Murata, Shiran, Adegeest, and
Rodriguez. Ans. 10-12.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Murata, Shiran,
and Adegeest teaches or suggests the following limitations of claim 1:

2 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejections
over claims 33-35. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2010-009531
Application 10/342,159
4
a. Displaying a magnified image of the text detail image without
adjusting the display of the graphics image on the computer
screen?
b. Non-magnified text detail image being displayed as a layer on the
top of and at least partially covering the graphics image?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Murata, Shiran,
Adegeest, and Bast teaches or suggests:
a. Receiving a selected size for the magnified image and magnifying
the image to the selected size, as required by claims 5 and 28?
b. A user selecting the image resolution, as required by claims 8 and
31?

ANALYSIS
Appellants select claims 1, 10, and 24 as representative of the group
comprising claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 21, 24-27, 29, 30, and 32. App. Br. 7, 12.
Each of claims 1, 10, and 24 require displaying a non-magnified text detail
image as a layer on top of and partially covering the graphics image and
displaying a magnified image of the text detail image without adjusting the
graphics image. Appellants argue that none of the references cited by the
Examiner teach the disputed limitations. App. Br. 8-12. Specifically,
Appellants argue that Shiran adjusts and changes both the text and the
graphics when the text detail is magnified. App. Br. 8. Appellants provide a
picture of the browser with unmagnified text and magnified text wherein the
magnified text shows that the layout is reflowed in the browser. App. Br. 9.
Thus, Appellants contend that as the text is magnified, the portions of the
document below the magnified text are shifted down, which is contrary to
Appeal 2010-009531
Application 10/342,159
5
the claimed invention that requires the underlying display to be unaffected.
App. Br. 9-10. Additionally, Appellants argue that Shiran’s graphics are not
a separate layer, are unrelated to the text, and do not underlie the text. App.
Br. 10-11. However, the Examiner finds that it is the combination of the
references that teach these specific limitations and not solely Shiran. Ans. 3-
6. We agree with the Examiner.
The Examiner finds that Murata teaches an illustrated book displayed
on a computer screen that contains word balloons; that Shiran teaches
increasing the size of font on a computer screen; and that Adegeest teaches
using different layers for a graphics image and for text and the ability to
modify the text without modifying the graphics image. Ans. 3-6 and 19-22.
Thus, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine all of
these teachings and arrive at the claimed invention. Ans. 3-6 and 19-22. We
agree with the Examiner findings and also find that the combination of these
elements is nothing more than a simple substitution of known elements by
known methods to produce a predictable result. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). As such, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 21, 24-27, 29, 30, and 32.
Regarding claims 5 and 28, Appellants argue that Murata, Shiran,
Adegeest, and Bast do not teach selecting a size for magnifying the text and
displaying the magnified image according to the size selected because Bast
teaches zooming in and out the display of a mobile phone, not
increasing/decreasing the size of text. App. Br. 12-13. However, the
Examiner finds that Shiran discloses this limitation, not Bast. Ans. 23. For
instance, the Examiner finds that Shiran’s programming selects and displays
the font size as 30 when the mouse is moved over the text. Ans. 23. While
none of the references teach specifically allowing a user to change the size
Appeal 2010-009531
Application 10/342,159
6
of the text, the claims do not require that a user indicate the size of the text.
As such, we agree with the Examiner’s finding and sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5 and 28.
Regarding claims 8 and 31, Appellants argue that Murata, Shiran,
Adegeest, and Bast do not teach displaying a user selected image resolution
because Bast teaches zooming and not changing the resolution of the graphic
display. App. Br. 14. However, the Examiner finds that when an image is
zoomed in or out, the resolution of the image is also affected. Ans. 24.
Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s specific finding. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8
and 31.
CONCLUSION
1. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Murata,
Shiran, and Adegeest teaches or suggests the following limitations of
claims 1, 10, and 24:
a. Displaying a magnified image of the text detail image without
adjusting the display of the graphics image on the computer screen;
and
b. Non-magnified text detail image being displayed as a layer on the
top of and at least partially covering the graphics image.
2. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Murata,
Shiran, Adegeest, and Bast teaches or suggests:
a. Receiving a selected size for the magnified image and magnifying
the image to the selected size, as required by claims 5 and 28; and
b. A user selecting the image resolution, as required by claims 8 and
31.

Appeal 2010-009531
Application 10/342,159
7
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-11, 21, and 24-35 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

tj