11670271 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

Ex Parte Tapuska

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 2016

11670271 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111670,271 02/01/2007 89133 7590 08/02/2016 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP 250 UNIVERSITY A VENUE 5THFLOOR TORONTO, ON MSH 3E5 CANADA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David TAPUSKA 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. 42783-2195 6798 EXAMINER DASGUPTA, SHOURJO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2016 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): ipinfo@ridoutmaybee.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID TAPUSKA Appeal2015-002061 Application 11/670,271 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, ~4dministratfve Patent Jitdge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-002061 Application 11/670,271 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. The invention relates to selecting a file in a list of files and viewing a portion of the content of the file in an inline window (see Spec. i-f 20-25). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method implemented on a device for prev1ewmg contents of a file in a display screen, comprising: receiving a selection of a scrollable file in a list of files in the display screen; opening in place within the scrollable list of files an inline viewing window adjacent the position of the selected file; and displaying in the inline viewing window a portion but not all of the contents of the selected file. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Tilt Leong et al. Fors tall et al. O'Shaughnessy et al. us 5,363,481 us 5,513,342 US 2004/0260756 Al US 2007 /0033517 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: 2 Nov. 8, 1994 Apr. 30, 1 996 Dec. 23, 2004 Feb. 8,2007 Appeal2015-002061 Application 11/670,271 Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Forstall and O'Shaughnessy. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35U.S.CÂ§103(a) as being unpatentable over Forstall, O'Shaughnessy, and Leong. Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Forstall, O'Shaughnessy, and Tilt. Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Forstall, O'Shaughnessy, Leong, and Tilt. ANALYSIS Appellant contends: 0' Shaughnessy does not teach or suggest "a method implemented on a device for previewing contents of a file . . . comprising: opening in place within the scrollable list of files an inline viewing window adjacent the position of the selected file" and "displaying in the inline viewing window a portion but not all of the contents of the selected file," as recited in claim l of the present application. (App. Br. 14). More specifically, with respect to O'Shaughnessy's Web browser favorites list, Appellant argues: The selection of an item in the favourites list, such as CNN, does not result in a display of a portion of the content of the selected file. That is, a portion of the CNN page is not displayed, but rather a list of recent headlines of an RSS feed associated with the bookmarked page is displayed (para. 23). (App. Br. 14). We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. We agree with the Examiner that O'Shaughnessy's displaying RSS headlines for a Web page, for example, the CNN page, meets the limitation of "displaying in the inline viewing window a portion but not all of the 3 Appeal2015-002061 Application 11/670,271 contents of the selected file," as recited in claim 1 (see Ans. 4--5; O'Shaughnessy, Fig. 2). Specifically, we find the bookmark for CNN represents the CNN Web page, i.e., a "file," and the RSS headlines displayed upon selection of the CNN bookmark represent a portion of the "contents" of the CNN page (see O'Shaughnessy, Fig. 2). The RSS headlines are indeed "a portion but not all of the contents" of the CNN page because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the headlines are titles-i.e., a "portion"---of news stories that would appear on the actual page (see Ans. 4--5). Even if we agreed with Appellant that 0' Shaughnessy failed to disclose displaying a portion of the "contents" of a selected "file" (see App Br. 14; Reply Br. 3), we would still not be persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection. Forstall, the Examiner finds, teaches selecting a file and displaying the contents of the file in a viewing window (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3). Specifically, Forstall discloses an email display with a list of email messages 220---i.e., a "list of files"-and a content view 218 of the contents of a selected message-i.e., a "viewing window" for "displaying ... the contents of the selected file" (Forstall i-f 22; Fig. 2). Thus, it is only necessary for the Examiner to rely on 0' Shaughnessy for teaching the placement of the claimed "inline viewing window adjacent" to the selected item and for displaying only "a portion but not all of the contents" of the selected item (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 3--4). Under KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). 4 Appeal2015-002061 Application 11/670,271 Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ... to incorporate O'Shaughnessy's in- place preview aspect with [Forstall's] GUI for purposes of enabling easy viewing/reading by a user" (Final Act. 4). Appellant's arguments directed to the individual shortcomings of O'Shaughnessy are not persuasive given the Examiner's reliance on the combination of references. We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and independent claims 8 and 15 for which Appellant relies on the same arguments as for claim 1 (see App. Br. 19, 21). We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-23 which fall with the respective independent claims (see App. Br. 18-33). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-23 are affirmed. 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 5