11538231 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Bennah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 2013

11538231 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 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. 11/538,231 10/03/2006 Albert D. Bennah RPS920060128US1 (058) 1665 50594 7590 07/25/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER RIEGLER, PATRICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2013 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 ALBERT D. BENNAH and WILLIAM G. PAGAN ____________ Appeal 2010-008415 Application 11/538,231 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2010-008415 Application 11/538,231 2 Appellants Request for Rehearing (filed June 17, 2013) contends that we erred in our Decision on Appeal entered April 16, 2013 (“Decision”), in which we affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3-6. DISCUSSION Appellants contend that “rendering a phantom copy of the corresponding one of the windows” as recited in claim 4 is not taught by Gelsinger. Req. 3. In particular, Appellants contend that the translucent windows shown in Figure 8 of Gelsinger correspond to a selection, rather than a duplicate, or “phantom copy,” of a selected window. Req. 4-5. Claim 4 recites “highlighting a corresponding one of the windows . . . comprises rendering a phantom copy of the corresponding one of the windows . . . .” The Examiner finds that the scope of this limitation encompasses rendering translucent windows on a screen when a user’s cursor is placed over the associated task bar button as taught by Gelsinger. Ans. 11-12. We agree with the Examiner. As we found in our previous Decision (at 4), the Examiner’s findings are supported by Gelsinger. For example, Gelsinger teaches displaying top level windows, selecting top level windows, and making top level windows translucent. Abstract. In particular, Gelsinger teaches a selection agent that can make any desired window translucent. Col. 6, ll. 28-36. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish highlighting a window by making the window translucent as taught by Gelsinger from “rendering a phantom copy of the corresponding one of the windows” as recited in claim 4. Appeal 2010-008415 Application 11/538,231 3 DECISION We decline to change our Decision. Appellants’ request for rehearing is denied. 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). REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED gvw