Caldwell, John Ryan.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 20, 2020

13507601 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2020)

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.
13/507,601 07/12/2012 John Ryan Caldwell 3552.2.1 9398
136265 7590 04/20/2020
Kunzler, PC. - MX
50 West Broadway
10th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
EXAMINER
VYAS, ABHISHEK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2020 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):
docket@kunzlerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN RYAN CALDWELL
Appeal 2019-005179
Application 13/507,601
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 24–43. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MX Technologies, Inc.
Appeal Brief 2, filed June 11, 2018 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2019-005179
Application 13/507,601

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns visually representing budgeting
information in an intuitive, easily understandable manner. See Specification
¶¶ 14–17, Abstract, filed July 12, 2012 (Spec.). Claim 24 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
24. A computer-implemented method for dynamically
resizing bubbles for display in different-sized two-dimensional
viewing areas of different computer display devices, the method
comprising:
in response to receiving a request to access one larger and
at least two smaller bubbles on a two-dimensional viewing area
of a larger computer display device, displaying the larger and the
at least two smaller bubbles on the viewing area of the larger
computer display device with an original surface area of the
larger bubble being larger than an original surface area of either
of the at least two smaller bubbles and with the at least two
smaller bubbles being displayed around a periphery of the larger
bubble;
in response to receiving a request to access the larger and
the at least two smaller bubbles on a two-dimensional viewing
area of a smaller computer display device, shrinking the larger
and the at least two smaller bubbles to fit the viewing area of the
smaller computer display device in order to display the larger and
the at least two smaller bubbles on the viewing area of the smaller
computer display device with the shrunken surface area of the
larger bubble remaining larger than the shrunken surface area of
either of the at least two smaller bubbles;
in response to receiving a request to again access the larger
and two smaller bubbles on the larger viewing area of the larger
computer display device, displaying the larger and the at least
two smaller bubbles to their original surface areas to fit the
viewing area of the larger computer display device in order to
again display the larger and the at least two smaller bubbles on
the viewing area of the larger computer display device; and
Appeal 2019-005179
Application 13/507,601

3
in response to detecting a change in a status of the larger
bubble, increasing the displayed size of the larger bubble.
Appeal Br. 12–13.
REJECTION2
Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 
24–43 112 Written Description
DISCUSSION
Claim 24 recites “displaying the larger and the at least two smaller
bubbles on the viewing area of the larger computer display device” and
“shrinking the larger and the at least two smaller bubbles to fit the viewing
area of the smaller computer display device in order to display the larger and
the at least two smaller bubbles on the viewing area of the smaller computer
display device with the shrunken surface area of the larger bubble.” Appeal
Br. 12. Claim 24 also recites “displaying the larger and the at least two
smaller bubbles to their original surface areas to fit the viewing area of the
larger computer display device.” Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner rejected claim 24 under § 112 “as failing to comply
with the written description requirement” because these limitations3 “lack
sufficient disclosure in the specification.” Non-Final Office Action 6, mailed
January 12, 2018 (Non-Final Act.). The Examiner explained that “[t]he

2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 24–43 under § 101.
Examiner’s Answer 3, mailed April 22, 2019.
3 The Examiner addressed a version of these limitations that differs slightly
from the version before us on appeal. Compare Appeal Br. 12–13 (version
of claim 24 on appeal), with Non-Final Act. 6 (quoting limitations from a
version of claim 24 added on February 11, 2016). Appellant has not argued
that the Examiner erred by doing so or pointed to any material difference
between the two sets of limitations.
Appeal 2019-005179
Application 13/507,601

4
absence of details in the disclosure regarding how the inventor accomplishes
such functions[] is interpreted as not satisfying the written description
requirement.” Non-Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant argues that the written description provides sufficient
support for the limitations identified by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 4–6;
Reply Brief 2–4, filed June 24, 2019. Appellant contends that after reading
certain parts of the written description, those of ordinary skill in the art
would conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Appeal Br. 5.
We agree with Appellant. To satisfy the written description
requirement, “the disclosure of the application relied upon” must
“reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm.,
Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The
written description at issue satisfies this requirement for the disputed
limitations. The written description discloses that bubbles can enlarged or
shrunk based on the size of the display device and shows examples of
bubbles displayed on a display device. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 19, 41, Figs. 6, 9–
13. And as asserted by Appellant, “the steps used to calculate an area of a
circle or a volume of a sphere, and then scale the calculated area or volume
as a function of a reference value, e.g., the viewing area of a display [are]
well known in the art.” Appeal Br. 5. The written description requirement
does not demand detailed descriptions of such well-known acts. See, e.g.,
Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (“[A] patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well
known in the art.”); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
Appeal 2019-005179
Application 13/507,601

5
§ 2163(II)(A)(2) (“Information which is well known in the art need not be
described in detail in the specification.”).
We therefore agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown
that the written description lacks adequate support for the disputed
limitations. We thus do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24
under § 112. Because the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25–43 under § 112
suffers from the same deficiency, we also do not sustain this rejection.
CONCLUSION
The following table summarizes our decision for claims 24–43, the
claims before us on appeal:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
24–43 112 Written Description 24–43

REVERSED