Ex Parte Auer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 7, 201311858970 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2013) 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. 11/858,970 09/21/2007 Sonja Auer P07,0262 (26965-3913) 3724 26574 7590 11/07/2013 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP PATENT DEPARTMENT 233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600 CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473 EXAMINER HO, RUAY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/07/2013 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 SONJA AUER, CHRISTOPH KELLERMANN, and AXEL PLATZ1 __________ Appeal 2011-010062 Application 11/858,970 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method and apparatus for computerized processing of digital information. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2011-010062 Application 11/858,970 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-17 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 1). Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A method for computerized processing of digital information for display at a display screen in communication with a computerized processor, comprising the steps of: via said processor, reading digital information from a memory, said digital information comprising a plurality of items of first information and a plurality of items of second information, said plurality of items of second information respectively defining categories of said items of first information; in said processor, processing the items of first and second information read from said memory to cause said plurality of items of said first information to be displayed in a first display region of the display screen and to cause the plurality of items of second information to be simultaneously displayed in a second display region of the display screen, each of the first and second display regions having a respective size and the display of the respective information in one of said display regions causing no modification of the size of the other of said display regions; and at said display unit, allowing user-prompted interaction between said first and second display regions to allow multiple items of second information, respectively for multiple items of said first information displayed in said first display region, to be displayed in said second display region. Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kelts (US 2001/0030667 A1, Oct. 18, 2001) (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds: [O]ne possible meaning of the “first information” can be the “Movies” category and the subcategories of “Drama” and “Mystery” movies can be the “second information”. One of many features of the “Movies” category is that several categories like “Movies” “News” and “Sports” can all be displayed at the low level magnification while many subcategories of the “Mystery” or “Drama” movies can be Appeal 2011-010062 Application 11/858,970 3 simultaneously displayed in the high level magnification. Said feature and each and every element of claims 1 and 17 are cited in paragraphs [0078][0201] & [0208]. (Ans. 8.) Appellants do not dispute that “the general category of ‘movies’ might be considered to correspond to the first information of claims 1 and 17, and the subcategories of ‘mystery’ and ‘drama’ might be considered to correspond to the second information of claims 1 and 17” (App. Br. 5). However, Appellants argue: Based on such correspondence, the Kelts reference does not disclose, through user-prompted interaction between the first and second display regions, allowing multiple items of the second information, respectively for multiple items of the first information displayed in a first display region, to be displayed in a second display region, with no modification of the size of the second display region occurring. (Id.) ANALYSIS Claim 1 requires a plurality of items of first information to be displayed in a first display region of a display screen and a plurality of items of second information to be displayed in a second display region of the display screen, each of the first and second display regions having a respective size and the display of the respective information in one of the display regions causing no modification of the size of the other of the display regions. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds that the Kelts “Figure 3 disclosure of a ‘ring around the center of the island’ is a second display region on top of a first display region upon user prompted interaction” (Final Appeal 2011-010062 Application 11/858,970 4 Rej. 9). In addition, Kelts Figure 3 depicts a plurality of items of second information, specifically “Mystery” and “Drama,” in this second display region. Moreover, Kelts Figure 1, which is at a lower level of magnification (Kelts, ¶ [0078]), depicts a plurality of items of first information, including “Movies,” “News,” and “Sports.” However, if the user zooms out from the level of magnification depicted in Figure 3 to see the plurality of items of first information depicted in Figure 1, the ring around the center of the “Movies” island depicted in Figure 3 clearly becomes smaller. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately explained how Kelts discloses causing a plurality of items of first information to be displayed in a first display region of a display screen and a plurality of items of second information to be displayed in a second display region of the display screen, wherein the display of the respective information in one of the display regions causes no modification of the size of the other of said display regions. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Kelts anticipates Appellants’ claimed invention. We therefore reverse the anticipation rejection of record. REVERSED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
