Ex Parte PARK

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

14220601 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/220,601 03/20/2014
68103 7590 03/29/2019
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jun-Young PARK
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.
0201-0799 5716
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUN-YOUNG PARK
Appeal2018-007069
Application 14/220,601 1
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, 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 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant's Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as
the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007069
Application 14/220,601
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to editing tables on a display. Claim 9,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
9. A method for editing a table in a terminal, the
method comprising:
displaying a plurality of handlers used to determine a
position of a row number adjusting User Interface (UI) and a
column number adjusting UI over a table in response to selecting
the table;
determining the position of the row number adjusting UI
and the column number adjusting UI corresponding to a specific
handler selected among the plurality of handlers and performing
a conversion to a table editing mode; and
displaying the row number adjusting UI and the column
number adjusting UI that can respectively adjust a number of
rows and a number of columns on the table in the table editing
mode.
App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
1. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Create
Tables," 2010 (hereinafter, "WSDOT"), archived at archive.org and
available at:
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Communications/WebToolKit/Tables.htm
2. Prakash, "Resize Table in Word 2013," 2012 (hereinafter,
"Prakash"), archived at archive.org and available at:
http://www.c-sharpcomer.com/UploadFile/8ea152/resize-table-in-
word-2013/
3. B., Prakash, "JQuery Table Column Count," 2012 (hereinafter,
"'JQuery"), available at:
2
Appeal2018-007069
Application 14/220,601
http://csharp-guide.blogspot.com/2012/08/jquery-table-column-
count.html
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable
over WSDOT, Prakash, and JQuery.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in determining WSDOT teaches
or suggests "displaying a plurality of handlers used to determine a position
of a row number adjusting User Interface (UI) and a column number
adjusting UI over a table in response to selecting the table," as recited in
claim 9?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Prakash teaches or
suggests "determining the position of the row number adjusting UI and the
column number adjusting UI corresponding to a specific handler selected
among the plurality of handlers and performing a conversion to a table
editing mode," as recited in claim 9?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. Appellant
argues claims 1 and 9 together and does not present separate arguments for
any dependent claims. We treat claim 9 as representative, and our decision
as to claim 9 is dispositive of the remaining claims.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
3
Appeal2018-007069
Application 14/220,601
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-8) and (2) the findings,
reasons, and explanations set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellant's Brief (Ans. 3-13). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following points for
emphasis.
First Issue
In rejecting claim 9, the Examiner finds WSDOT teaches "displaying
a plurality of handlers used to determine a position of row number adjusting
User Interface (UI) and a column number adjusting UI over a table in
response to selecting the table," citing Step 4 and Figure 4 in support. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner explains:
WSDOT teaches, for example, displaying "a plurality of
handlers" by showing a plurality of elements ("handlers") used
to arrive at the Applicant-admitted "Uis for increasing or
decreasing column and row size." These elements are "used to
determine position of a row number adjusting User Interface (UI)
and a column number adjusting UI over the table" because they
are utilized to arrive at the displaying of "Uis for increasing or
decreasing column and row size." Thus, their appearing (in their
displayed positions) is a result and function of the user's actions
stepping through these elements. This meets Applicant's
broadly-defined claim.
Additionally and alternatively, we can see that Prakash also
displays table-editing elements in response to user selections in
various positions.
Final Act. 8.
Appellant argues WSDOT does not teach the "displaying" limitation
because "WSDOT only arguably suggests a UI ('+'and'-' buttons) for
adjusting (increasing or decreasing) of a row or column displayed on a
designated location-regardless of a position of the cursor." App. Br. 4.
4
Appeal2018-007069
Application 14/220,601
Appellants further contend the"+" and"-" buttons in WSDOT only increase
or decrease the size of rows and columns, and not the number of rows and
column in the table. App. Br. 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Appellant's first
argument is not persuasive for two reasons: (1) it is not commensurate with
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and (2) the Examiner
does not rely solely on WSDOT for the argued limitation. The argued
limitation recites "displaying a plurality of handlers used to determine a
position of row number adjusting User Interface (UI) and a column number
adjusting UI over a table in response to selecting the table." Appellant's
argument presumes that the claim requires that a different "position of the
cursor" must result in a different designated location for the row number
adjusting UI and the column number adjusting UL"
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim requires only
that the displayed handlers be used to determine the position of the Uis.
There is no requirement that the different positions for the Uis depending on
the location of the handlers. Rather, all that is required is that the handlers
be used to determine the position of the Uis. Thus, a process in which the
handlers each cause the Uis to be positioned in the same location is
encompassed by the broad scope of the argued limitation. "[D]uring patent
prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized,
scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed." In re
Zietz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Under this broad, but reasonable interpretation of the limitation, we
agree with the Examiner that WSDOT teaches the argued limitation because
the handlers in WSDOT (such as the "Insert Table" button or the "Table
5
Appeal2018-007069
Application 14/220,601
Wizard" button) are displayed and their selection causes the row and column
adjusting Uis to be displayed in their respective positions.
We also are not persuaded by Appellant's argument because, as
explained by the Examiner, "Prakash also displays table-editing elements in
response to user selections in various positions." Ans. 8. Appellant does not
address the pertinent teachings of Prakash. Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the combined teachings the references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the absence of sufficient persuasive
evidence or argument to the contrary, we agree with the Examiner in finding
Prakash teaches or suggests the disputed displaying limitation.
We also do not find Appellant's second argument persuasive.
Appellant argues the buttons in WSDOT only increase the size of rows and
columns and not the number of rows and columns. However, as explained
by the Examiner, WSDOT includes an additional set of buttons that are used
to increase the number of rows and or columns. Ans. 7. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred with respect to the "displaying"
limitation of claim 9.
Second Issue
The Examiner finds Prakash teaches or suggests "determining the
position of the row number adjusting UI and the column number adjusting
UI corresponding to a specific handler selected among the plurality of
handlers and performing a conversion to a table editing mode," as recited in
claim 9. Final Act. 3 ( citing Prakash, step 2, Fig. 2 ).
6
Appeal2018-007069
Application 14/220,601
Appellant argues Prakash is deficient because it "does not disclose
that positions of the small cross icon and the resize icon are changed and
displayed, according to a position of the mouse." App. Br. 6.
We do not find this argument persuasive because it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. In particular, Appellant argues
Prakash does not teach the location of UI elements must be "changed and
displayed, according to a position of the mouse." However, as we discussed
above, there is no requirement in the claim that the selection of different
handlers result in different positions of the row and column number
adjusting Uis. Rather, the claim only requires that a determination be made
for the positioning of the Uis upon selection of a handler. Even if the
determined position is the same for each handler, it falls within the scope of
the claim because the claim does not recite that the handlers must be
associated with different respective positions. Thus, the claim is broader
than argued by Appellant because it does not require that the position of the
UI elements be "changed and displayed, according to a position of the
mouse," as argued by Appellant. App. Br. 6. Because Appellant seeks to
distinguish the prior art based on a limitation not recited in the claim, the
argument is not persuasive. See Ans. 12.
Summary
Because Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of Examiner, we
sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because we select
claim 9 as representative, we also sustain the rejection of the remaining
claims. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv).
7
Appeal2018-007069
Application 14/220,601
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8