Ex Parte Muller

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12651248 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/651,248 12/31/2009
46321 7590 08/02/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Muller
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.
CAM920090045US1 (246) 8768
EXAMINER
PAN, YONGJIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL MULLER
Appeal2015-004131
Application 12/651,248 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004131
Application 12/651,248
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellant's disclosed and claimed "invention relates to hand-held
phone display management and more particularly to the arrangement of
icons in a display of a hand-held device." Spec. i-f 1 (Field of the Invention).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added to contested limitations):
1. A flexible grid display management method
compnsmg:
generating a grid of multiple different cells in a user
interface in a handheld device, each of the cells comprising a
link to an application or content for an application;
displaying the grid in the user interface in the handheld
device;
receiving an event directed to the grid of the multiple
different cells that directs a zooming operation on the grid of
the multiple different cells; and,
performing the zooming operation on the grid of the
multiple different cells responsive to the event directing the
zooming.
2 Our decision relies upon Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Sept. 2, 2014); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 17, 2015); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 22, 2014); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Apr. 2, 2014); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Dec. 31, 2009).
2
Appeal2015-004131
Application 12/651,248
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Marvit et al. ("Marvit") US 2005/0210417 Al Sept. 22, 2005
Gallo US 2006/0161863 Al July 20, 2006
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gallo and Marvit. Final Act. 2.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 4--9), we decide the appeal
of the rejection of claims 1-20 on the basis of representative claim 1.
ISSUE
Appellant argues (App. Br. 4--9; Reply Br. 2---6) the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Gallo and Marvit is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, the steps of "receiving an
event directed to the grid of the multiple different cells that directs a
zooming operation on the grid of the multiple different cells," and
"performing the zooming operation on the grid of the multiple different cells
responsive to the event directing the zooming," as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2015-004131
Application 12/651,248
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. We do not consider arguments
which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so that
we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20,
and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for
emphasis as follows.
Appellant contends:
Gallo does not teach that the selection of a cell results in a
zoom operation of the entire cellular environment. Rather,
Gallo only describes the creation of a new zoom state for the
selected cell. In other words, the mere selection of a cell does
not imply receiving an event specifying a zooming operation
directed to the grid. Instead, Gallo teaches changes the zoom
state of a selected cell, not the zoom state of the grid.
App. Br. 6-7.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Gallo
and Marvit teaches or at least suggests Appellant's contested limitations. We
agree with the Examiner because Gallo's layouts, associated with the
cellularized environment, and specifying a zoom level for the cells being
displayed, along with cell locations and default values for cells teaches or at
4
Appeal2015-004131
Application 12/651,248
least suggests disputed limitations "performing the zooming operation on the
grid of the multiple different cells" and "direct[ing] a zooming operation on
the grid of the multiple different cells." Ans. 4.
Appellant further contends "Examiner's conclusion at page 4 of the
Examiner's Answer that any event directed toward the 'grid,' such as hitting
of the 'Enter' key, will result in a change of zoom level of the grid is overly
broad." Reply Br. 5.
We agree with the Examiner's finding Gallo's hitting an enter key
teaches or suggests disputed limitations "the event directing the zooming"
and "receiving an event directed to the grid." Ans. 4, citing Gallo i-f 44,
Fig. 5B. We agree because the claim term "event" is not explicitly defined
in the Appellant's Specification. Although Appellant's Specification
provides examples of "events" (Spec. 4), Appellant does not point to an
explicit definition of this term in the Specification. Accordingly, under the
hrn~rle~t re::ison~hle internrefation :mil l~c:kinP miv eviilenc:e of ref'.nrrl th::it
-~-~----~-~- ------~-------- ------_r--------~--, ----~ ---------o ----.. ,; - ·------- ~-- -------~ ------
would show the Examiner's interpretation to be overly broad, unreasonable,
or inconsistent with the Specification, we agree with the Examiner's claim
construction, his reading of the contested limitations onto the cited prior art,
and the legal conclusion of obviousness of claim l.
l\1oreover, Appellant has provided no evidence that combining the
prior art teachings was "uniquely challenging or ditlicult for one of ordinary
skill in the art" (Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)), nor has Appellant presented evidence that this
incorporation yielded more than expected results. Further, .Appellant has not
provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which our
reviewing court guides "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.''
5
Appeal2015-004131
Application 12/651,248
Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2-20
which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2---6) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a reply brief that were not raised in
the appeal brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's
Answer will not be considered except for good cause, which Appellant has
not shown. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness rejection of
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combination of
record, and we sustain the rejection.
6
Appeal2015-004131
Application 12/651,248
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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
7