Ex Parte Gelfand

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2018

13834023 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/834,023 03/15/2013 Irena Gelfand
34018 7590 12/06/2018
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
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.
31083.SlUSl 7631
EXAMINER
HTAY,LINLINM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2018 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):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
j arosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IRENA GELFAND
Appeal 2018-003751
Application 13/834,023 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is W.W. Grainger, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-003751
Application 13/834,023
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with key limitations
emphasized, reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer readable media embodied
in a physical memory device having stored thereon computer
executable instructions for facilitating product search result
within an electronic product catalog, the instructions perform
steps comprising:
receiving a request to search for product within a general
product category;
causing an user interface for the general product category
to be displayed in a consumer computing device, the user
interface for the general product category comprising an
interactive product informational section wherein the interactive
product informational section presents a plurality of first level
product categories for product within the general product
category and a plurality of user interface elements for use in
expanding and collapsing in place within the interactive product
informational section each of the plurality of first level product
categories to thereby provide selective access to a second level
of product information for product that is caused to be
presented in an area directly below the corresponding first level
product category for product within the interactive product
informational section of the general product category;
wherein the second level of product information caused
to be selectively presented in an expanded one of the plurality
of first level product categories in place within the
interactive product informational section comprises a table
2
Appeal 2018-003751
Application 13/834,023
having a plurality [sic][of] 2 rows and a plurality of vertically
scrollable columns, wherein each of the plurality of rows
corresponds to a uniquely identifiable one of a plurality of
products within the corresponding first level product
category for product within the general product category,
wherein a one of a plurality of characteristic information for the
uniquely identifiable one of the plurality of products within
each of the plurality of rows is presented in a corresponding one
of the plurality of vertically scrollable columns, wherein each of
the vertically scrollable columns within the table includes a
sticky header in which is presented a label, and wherein the
sticky header of each of the plurality of vertically scrollable
columns within the table will not move from an initially
provided display location in place within the interactive product
informational section in response to any subsequent scrolling of
the characteristic information listed in the plurality of
vertically scrollable columns; and
wherein each uniquely identifiable one of the plurality of
products has an associated user interface element for causing a
display of more detailed information for a corresponding one
of the uniquely identifiable one of the plurality of products.
2 Although the actual language of claim 1 (see Amendment filed Feb. 23,
2017, p. 2) does state "or" here, Appellant (see App. Br. 5) and Examiner
(see Final Act. 9; Ans. 2--4, 6) treat this as "of." Note, the next clause uses
the correct word "of'. We consider this to be harmless error.
3
Appeal 2018-003751
Application 13/834,023
The Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 6-11 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over unpatentable over L.L. Bean catalog (Sept.
23 2011) l-..,'-{·,.,. /l-,-..r-....~~-,11,- 111'\,·:~n,->.1 .~~ .. ,,--..--../111~/~l--...-.... ,f'\/"gc\~)1'"\•:]\•---~n-"1i'~.-, l-..,f'\ last v1·s1"ted , , -~1l l1J ,,/ /_ V\•' _"t,."':'. v·,:_~ ~-~ ~):,.__.(t~ ~. ::.._.,l} 11~/ -~ ~ ~..':' .._ . .tl \...~Vi .-..• (_. _.l _: -~1{"~. -..: ·":'fF ~ ~1 (., •• ~ ~ V,
Nov. 3, 2014 (hereinafter, "L.L. Bean"), 3 and Rauenzahn (US 2012/0246593
Al; published Sept. 27, 2012). Final Act. 6-15.
(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 4 and 5 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over L.L. Bean, Rauenzahn, and
Dicker (US 2010/0191582 Al; published July 29, 2010). 4 Final Act. 15-17.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Appellant presents general arguments as to L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn
without addressing a specific claim (see App. Br. 4--7). The disputed table
limitation is found in sole independent claim 1, as well as each of claims 2-
11 depending therefrom. We select claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims rejected over L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn (claims 1-3 and 6-11). We
decide the outcome of claims 4 and 5 (rejected over the base combination of
L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn taken with Dicker) on the same basis as claim 1
from which claims 4 and 5 ultimately depend.
3 The Examiner cites to L.L. Bean in the Final Rejection as having a prior art
date of September 23, 2011 (Final Act. 6), prior to Appellant's application
filing date of March 15, 2013. Appellant has not disputed this date on the
record before us.
4 Appellant's briefs fail to present any separate arguments with regard to the
rejection of claims 4 and 5 under§ I03(a) over L.L. Bean, Rauenzahn, and
Dicker (see generally App. Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2--4). Therefore, Appellant
has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 5. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2018-003751
Application 13/834,023
Based on Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4--7)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2--4), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-11 as being obvious over
the base combination of L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn because the base
combination fails to teach or suggest "a table having a plurality [of][sic]
rows and a plurality of vertically scrollable columns," as recited in
representative claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 6-17) in light
of Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred
(App. Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2--4). We disagree with Appellant's arguments.
With regard to representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 6-10), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-7) in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner as to the obviousness
rejection of claim 1.
We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not
in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as
a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (one
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references) ( citation omitted).
With regard to representative claim 1, Appellant's contentions (App.
Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2) that L.L. Bean individually fails to disclose "a table
5
Appeal 2018-003751
Application 13/834,023
having a plurality of rows and a plurality of vertically scrollable columns,"
as recited in representative claim 1, are not persuasive in light of the
Examiner's' application of a combination of the teachings and suggestions
of L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn.
In general, Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2) are
drawn to L.L. Bean individually, and not to the combination articulated by
the Examiner. The Examiner (Final Act. 9; Ans. 3-5) relies upon
Rauenzahn (Figs. 1-3) as teaching the recited table in claim 1, having a
plurality of rows and a plurality of vertically scrollable columns. 5 The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that both L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn "are
directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, presentation of items and
their characteristic information on a graphical user interface (i.e. GUI)"
(Final Act. 10). And, the Examiner determines, and we agree, that it would
have been obvious "to incorporate Rauenzahn's teaching[s] in the L. L. Bean
system to display vertical scrollable columns in a table" (Final Act. 10). In
this light, Appellant's contention (Reply Br. 3) that the Examiner has not
provided any motivation for modifying L.L. Bean with Rauenzahn's table
having rows and columns, is unpersuasive. 6 Similarly, Appellant's
5 "Rauenzahn teaches a table having a plurality of rows and a plurality of
vertically scrollable columns" (Final Act. 9). "Rauenzahn teaches in Figure
3 a table with [a] plurality of rows and columns" (Ans. 4), wherein the
columns are vertically scrollable (see Ans. 3).
6 And notably, as long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the
references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not
require that the references be combined for the precise reasons contemplated
by the inventor. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing
In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304 (CCPA 1976)). Any motivation,
"whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by
evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient." Outdry
6
Appeal 2018-003751
Application 13/834,023
contention (App. Br. 7) that Rauenzahn fails to cure the deficiencies of L.L.
Bean as to teaching the recited table, is also unpersuasive.
Although we agree with Appellant's contentions (App. Br. 7; Reply
Br. 4) that the Buczek reference cited by the Examiner at page 11 of the
Final Rejection (as explicitly teaching the recited tables) is not properly
included in the rejection of claim 1, 7 the Examiner recognizes this as well
(see Ans. 6). As a result, we have not considered the Buczek reference since
it is not part of the rejection. Nevertheless, we find the collective teachings
and suggestions of L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn would have taught or
suggested the subject matter of claim 1, including "a table having a plurality
of rows and a plurality of vertically scrollable columns."
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of representative
claim 1 as being obvious over the combination of L.L. Bean and Rauenzahn,
as well as claims 2, 3, and 6-11 grouped therewith.
Claims 4 and 5
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combination of L.L. Bean, Rauenzahn, and Dicker teaches or
suggests the non-transitory computer-readable media recited in claims 4 and
5 because Appellant does not address the merits of this rejection, or
Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370-71 (Fed Cir.
2017).
7 "Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a
'minor capacity,' there would appear to be no excuse for not positively
including the reference in the statement of the rejection." In re Hoch, 428
F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
7
Appeal 2018-003751
Application 13/834,023
otherwise present arguments on the merits with regard to claims 4 and 5. 8
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (requiring that "[e]ach ground of rejection
contested by appellant must be argued under a separate heading," and "any
arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused
consideration"). As such, Appellant has not argued that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 4 and 5 or otherwise shown this obviousness rejection to
be in error. See id.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting representative claim 1 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of L.L.
Bean and Rauenzahn.
(2) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner has erred in rejecting
claims 4 and 5 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of L.L. Bean, Rauenzahn, and Dicker.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11 are affirmed.
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
8 We note the Appeal Brief lacks a separate and substantive argument on the
§ 103 rejection of claims 4 and 5 over L.L. Bean, Rauenzahn, and Dicker
(see generally App. Br. 4--7).
8