Ex Parte Gustafsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

13809602 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/809,602 02/05/2013 Harald Gustafsson
24112 7590 06/20/2018
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4015-8425 I P31781-US2 5155
EXAMINER
LEE, JUSTIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2018 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 HARALD GUSTAFSSON
and SONG YUAN
Appeal 2017-011511
Application 13/809,602 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims
31-53. Claims 1-30 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to user input interaction with selectable items
in a graphical user interface of an electronic device. Abstract; Spec. 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget L M
Ericsson. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011511
Application 13/809,602
Claims 31, 42, and 53 are independent. Claim 31 is illustrative of the invention
( disputed limitation in italics):
31. A method, implemented by an electronic device, for
assisting a user of the electronic device, the method comprising:
providing a user with access to a plurality of electronic device
functions via corresponding items displayed in a graphical user
interface ( GUI) on a physical display of the electronic device;
receiving, from the user, an invocation of an electronic device
function via the corresponding item displayed within the GUI;
responsive to determining that the user did not intend the
invocation of the electronic device function, blocking access to the
electronic device function via the corresponding item while the
corresponding item remains displayed within the GUI.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner has rejected claims 31-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by van Cruyningen. 2 Final Act. 2-7.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that van Cruyningen discloses blocking access to the
electronic device function (popup menu) via the corresponding item (item in main
menu) while the corresponding item remains displayed within the GUI. Final Act.
3--4; Ans. 3-5. The Examiner relies on van Cruyningen's disclosure of removing
the popup menu as corresponding to blocking access to the electronic device
function. Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, the "definition of [the] verb 'block'
is 'to prevent movement through or past something, or to prevent something from
happening or succeeding."' Ans. 3. The Examiner further states that "[ o ]ne is
2 US 5,805,167; issued Sept. 8, 1998.
2
Appeal 2017-011511
Application 13/809,602
blocked from accessing the popup menu since now it is removed from display (i.e.
prevent accessing the popup menu) while the main menu icon ( e.g. icon 70 or icon
72 in figure 5, corresponding item) remains displayed within the GUI." Ans. 3.
Appellants contend that van Cruyningen does not disclose "blocking access
to the electronic device function via the corresponding item while the
corresponding item remains displayed within the GUI," as recited in independent
claim 31. 3 App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4--5. We find Appellants' argument to be
persuasive. In particular, we agree with Appellants that simply removing the
popup menu, as taught in van Cruyningen, is not the same as blocking access to
that popup menu via the corresponding item because the popup menu still is
accessible from the main menu. See App. Br. 8-9 ("Invocation to display a menu
is not blocked by removing that menu after the menu has already been displayed.
Indeed, the user is presumably free to invoke the menu for re-display as often as
they may desire."). In other words, "access ... via the corresponding item" is not
blocked when the popup menu is removed because the user is not prevented from
selecting the corresponding item on the main menu to access the popup menu.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claim 31, or the anticipation rejection of claims 42 and 53, which recite
commensurate limitations. For the same reason, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of dependent claims 32--41 and 43-52.
3 Because this issue is dispositive, we need not reach Appellants' additional
arguments. See App. Br. 9-16.
3
Appeal 2017-011511
Application 13/809,602
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 31-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
REVERSED
4