Ex Parte Grant

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13044397 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017)

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.
13/044,397 03/09/2011 Scott A. Grant P9993US1 (119-0413US1) 1770
61947 7590 11/17/2017
Ar>r>le - Rlank Rome.
EXAMINER
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
CHUNG, ANDREW
HOUSTON, TX 77002 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
mbrininger @ blankrome. com
hou stonpatents @ blankrome .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT A. GRANT
Appeal 2017-006429
Application 13/044,397
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 7—14, and 17—22.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The rejections of claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 have been withdrawn by the
Examiner. See Ans. 3. Claims 1—22 are pending.
Appeal 2017-006429
Application 13/044,397
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to receiving a request to
display a page of displayable content that includes at least one displayable
object and displaying a first reduced-size representation corresponding to the
displayable object (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method performed by a computer system, the
method comprising:
receiving a request to display, on a display screen, a
page of an electronic book that includes a displayable
object contained on the page, the displayable object having
original displayable dimensions that exceed dimensions of
a viewable area on the display screen;
selecting a reduced-size representation of the
displayable object, based on the displayable object’s
content, from a group comprising a non-interactive
thumbnail image of the displayable object and a user-
interactive object corresponding to the displayable object;
generating the selected reduced-size representation;
and
displaying the generated reduced-size
representation within the displayed page of the electronic
book on the display screen.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
2
Appeal 2017-006429
Application 13/044,397
Card US 2002/0113823 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Robert US 2008/0307343 A1 Dec. 11, 2008
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1—4, 7—14, and 17—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Card in view of Robert. Final Act. 2.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Card and Robert teaches or suggests the limitation of
receiving a request to display, on a display screen, a page
of an electronic book that includes a displayable object
contained on the page, the displayable object having original
displayable dimensions that exceed dimensions of a viewable
area on the display screen,
as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 11,21, and 22.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Examiner error because “Card discloses presenting
its ‘objects’ on a display area by displaying a first one of the ‘objects’ within
a main portion of the display area and displaying all of the other ‘objects’ as
thumbnails around the main portion of the same display area” (App. Br.
12—13, citing Card 82—89, Fig. 6, emphasis in original). Appellant further
contends “Card’s technique requires a determination that entire ‘objects’
(i.e., entire books and/or entire slide-out pages) do not fit within a display
area” (App. Br. 13, citing Card Tflf 73—82, emphasis in original).
3
Appeal 2017-006429
Application 13/044,397
We are persuaded by Appellant. The Examiner finds that “Card
teaches in Fig. 6, paragraph 0087 pages of a book with objects on the pages
(for instance, the objects at the top of pages 614-606 or the objects on the
bottom of pages 605, 607-610) that exceed a viewable area (rectangle 680)
on a display” (Ans. 4, emphasis added). While this finding indicates that in
Card, the displayed pages of a book have objects on the pages, the Examiner
does not identify a “displayable object having original displayable
dimensions that exceed dimensions of a viewable area on the display
screen,” as required by the claim. Instead, the Examiner identifies pages
614, 613, 612, 611, 606, 610, 609, 608, 607, and 605, which are the pages in
Figure 6 that are not completely displayed within the viewable area. These
pages are not the same as the claimed object; further, even if those pages
contain objects, the objects themselves (e.g. letters on a page) will not
exceed the dimensions of the viewable area. The addition of Robert does
not cure the identified deficiency.
Thus, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 11,21, and 22
commensurate in scope, and dependent claims 2—4, 7—10, 12—14, and 17—20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Card and Robert
teaches or suggests the limitation of
receiving a request to display, on a display screen, a page
of an electronic book that includes a displayable object
contained on the page, the displayable object having original
displayable dimensions that exceed dimensions of a viewable
area on the display screen,
4
Appeal 2017-006429
Application 13/044,397
as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 11,21, and 22.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 7—14, and 17—22 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5