Ex Parte JohanssonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 9, 201613133542 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 9342-509/PS10 1734 3885 EXAMINER XIA, XUYANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2143 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/133,542 06/08/2011 54414 7590 MYERS BIGEL, P.A. P.O. BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 12/09/2016 Fredrik Johansson 12/09/2016 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 FREDRIK JOHANSSON Appeal 2016-001163 Application 13/133,542 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 through 21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2016-001163 Application 13/133,542 INVENTION This invention is directed to an electronic device with a scroll bar in the graphical user interface for navigating the display screen. The scroll bar includes an options menu that can be accessed by expanding the scrollbar. See Abstract. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below. A method of operating an integrated scrollbar options menu in a graphical user interface of an electronic device, comprising: highlighting a scrollbar that is operable to scroll display content in a first direction corresponding to an axis of the scrollbar in response to a first navigational movement of the scrollbar in the first direction corresponding to the axis and that includes the integrated scrollbar options menu; and accessing the integrated scrollbar options menu by expanding the scrollbar using a second navigational movement of the scrollbar that is different from the first navigational movement and includes dragging the scrollbar from a collapsed position that hides the integrated scrollbar options menu toward an expanded position that displays the integrated scrollbar options menu. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9 through 15, and 17 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guido et al. (US 2006/0075357 Al; Apr. 6, 2006), Duncan et al. (US 7,477,233 B2; Jan. 2 Appeal 2016-001163 Application 13/133,542 13, 2009), and Jeong et al. (US 2009/0094562 Al; Apr. 9, 2009). Ans. 3- 26.1 The Examiner has rejected claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guido, Duncan, Jeong, and Xia et al. (US 6,252,594 Bl; June 26, 2001). Ans. 26—28. ISSUES Independent claims E 9, and 17 Appellant’s arguments, directed to claims 1, 9 and 17 on pages 6 through 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4 through 6 of the Reply Brief, in response to the Examiner’s rejection the independent claims present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Guido and Duncan teaches dragging a scrollbar from a collapsed position that hides the integrated scrollbar options menu toward an expanded positon that displays the integrated scrollbar options menu as recited in representative claim 1 ? Dependent claims 4, 5, and 19 Appellant’s arguments, directed to representative claim 4 on pages 9 and 10 of the Appeal Brief and page 6 of the Reply Brief, in response to the Examiner’s rejection of these claims present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Guido and Duncan, teaches collapsing the options menu into the scrollbar as recited in representative claim 4? 1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief dated Apr. 20, 2015; the Reply Brief dated Oct. 29, 2015; and the Examiner’s Answer mailed Sep. 1, 2015. 3 Appeal 2016-001163 Application 13/133,542 Dependent claims 8 and 16 Appellant’s arguments, directed to representative claim 8 on pages 10 and 11 of the Appeal Brief and page 6 of the Reply Brief, in response to the Examiner’s rejection these claims present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Guido, Duncan, and Xia teaches collapsing the options menu into the scrollbar as recited in representative claim 8? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 16. However, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9 through 15, and 17 through 21. Independent claims E 9, and 17 Appellant’s arguments directed to these claims focus on the teachings of Jeong, asserting the reference does not teach the limitation of dragging a scrollbar from a collapsed position that hides the integrated scrollbar options menu toward an expanded positon that displays the integrated scrollbar options menu. App. Br. 6—9. In response to Appellant’s arguments the Examiner finds that the disputed limitation is taught by the combination of Guido and Jeong. Ans. 29-32. Specifically, the Examiner finds Guido teaches a scrollbar with an integrated scrollbar menu and that Jeong teaches a tag which when dragged in one direction exposes a menu screen and dragged in the other direction hides the menu screen. Id. We have reviewed the Examiner’s findings and the supporting evidence and concur with the 4 Appeal 2016-001163 Application 13/133,542 Examiner. We note that Guido in para. 21 teaches that right clicking on the scrollbar brings up the scrollbar menu, we consider the use of Jeoug’s tag, which exposes and hides a menu, to be nothing more than using known methods to perform their known function. Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2, 6, 7, 9, through 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Dependent claims 4, 5, and 19 Appellant’s arguments directed to these claims focus on the teachings of Jeong, asserting the reference teaches covering and uncovering menu items and not collapsing the scroll bar options into the scroll bar. App. Br. 9—10. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response on pages 32 and 33 of the Answer. We concur with the Examiner. Further, in as much as Appellant argues there is difference between Jeong’s display of the menu and background image, we are not persuaded. As discussed above it is the combination of Jeong and Guida that teaches the disputed limitation and Guido teaches the claimed menu is accessed by interaction with the scroll bar (right clicking on the scroll bar). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, and 19, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Dependent claims 8 and 16 Appellant’s arguments directed to these claims focus on the teachings of Xia. Appellant asserts that Xia’s tool tip texts do not meet the any of the scrollbar options recited in claims 8 and 16 as asserted by the Examiner. App. Br. 10. The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments, cites to 5 Appeal 2016-001163 Application 13/133,542 Xia’s Figure 8B finding that Xi teaches pop-up menus, which allow the user to scroll a page. Answer 34. We disagree with the Examiner and concur with Appellant’s argument that Figure 8B of Xia depicts a text box and not options which the user can select. App. Br. 10—11. Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 16, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9 through 15, and 17 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation