Ex Parte Parsons

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14193441 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/193,441 02/28/2014 Vincent L. Parsons
111003 7590 07/03/2018
Adobe I Finch & Maloney PLLC
50 Commercial Street
Manchester, NH 03101
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.
AD01.P623C2 5571
EXAMINER
NUNEZ, JORDANY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
docketing@finchmaloney.com
nmaloney@finchmaloney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINCENT L. PARSONS 1
(Applicant: ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED)
Appeal2017---009505
Application 14/193 ,441
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, BEYERL Y A. FRANKLIN, and
FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ADOBE SYSTEMS
Incorporated.
Appeal2017-009505
Application 14/193 ,441
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 48, 50-57, 59---64, 66, and 67. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 48 is illustrative of Appellant's subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
48. A computer implemented method for displaying information on
a display device, the method comprising:
receiving, from a communication network, information that is
organizable by section labels, and that is implemented with a markup
language;
displaying at least a portion of the received information in a content
pane rendered on the display device;
displaying a first section label corresponding to a first section of the
information, wherein the entire first section of the information is not
displayed simultaneously;
in response to first user input, (a) scrolling the displayed information
while simultaneously maintaining display of the first section label at a
location, and (b) scrolling a second section label corresponding to a second
section of the information, wherein the second section label scrolls with the
second section of the information while the first section label remains at the
location; and
in response to user input received once the second section label has
been scrolled adjacent to the location of the first section label, replacing the
2
Appeal2017-009505
Application 14/193 ,441
first section label with the second section label at the location by scrolling
the first section label out of the content pane while the second section label
scrolls into the location that had been occupied by the first section label.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Dauerer et al. US 6,205,454 Bl
(hereafter "Dauerer")
Nielsen US 6,199,080 Bl
Allam et al. US 2002/0116420 Al
(hereafter "Allam")
Mar. 20, 2001
Mar. 6, 2001
Aug. 22, 2002
THE REJECTIONS 2
1. Claims 48, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, and 66 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dauerer.
2. Claim 51 is rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dauerer in view of Nielsen. 3
3. Claims 54, 55, 60, 62, and 67 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dauerer in view of Allam.
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, as pointed out by Appellant on pages 1-2 of the
Appeal Brief, there are concurrent Appeal No. 2018---001508 (U.S.
Application 14/148,656), and Appeal No. 2017-009517 (U.S. Patent
2 The double patenting rejections and the 35 USC§ 112 rejection have been
withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 2.
3 Claims 49, 58, and 65 are not listed as being rejected in Rejection 2
because these claims are cancelled claims.
3
Appeal2017-009505
Application 14/193 ,441
Application 14/193,453). We decide the instant appeal in a similar manner
as set forth in these related appeals because the issues in each of these
appeals are similar.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of the
respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of
evidence supports the Examiner's findings and conclusion that the subject
matter of Appellant's claims is unpatentable over the applied art.
Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner's rejections on appeal for the
reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, and add the
following for emphasis.
Rejection 1
As in our decision for Appeal No. 2018---001508 (which we
incorporate herein), and as reiterated in the record of the instant application
by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner that the kind of movement
taught in Dauerer is scrolling movement within the meaning of this claim
term as recited in the instant claims, and therefore agree with the Examiner
that Dauerer does anticipate the claims in this regard. As such, we affirm
Rejection 1.
Rejections 2 and 3
Appellant does not separately argue Rejections 2 and 3, and therefore
we likewise affirm these rejections for the same reasons that we affirm
Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 10.
4
Appeal2017-009505
Application 14/193 ,441
DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5