Ex Parte Parsons

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14193453 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/193,453 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.P623C3 8200
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---009517
Application 14/193,453
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, BEYERL Y A. FRANKLIN, and
FRANCISO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ADOBE SYSTEMS
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009517
Application 14/193,453
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's decision rejecting 48, 50-55, 57---61, and 63---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 a
document on a display device having an application window rendered
thereon, the method comprising:
in response to a first user input, displaying at least a portion
of a document organizable by section labels;
displaying a first section label corresponding to a first
document section at a header location, wherein the entire first
document section cannot be displayed simultaneously;
in response to a second user input, scrolling the document to
reveal heretofore latent portions of the first document section
while simultaneously maintaining display of the first section label
at the header location;
in response to a third user input, scrolling the document to
reveal a second section label corresponding to a second document
section, wherein the second section label is positioned between the
first document section and the second document section and scrolls
with the second document section while the first section label
remains at the header location; and
in response to a fourth user input received once the second
section label has been scrolled adjacent to the header location,
replacing the first section label with the second section label at the
header location by scrolling the first section label out of the
application window while the second section label scrolls into the
header location.
2
Appeal2017-009517
Application 14/193,453
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Nielsen
Dauerer et al.
(hereafter "Daurer")
Allam et al.
(hereafter "Allam")
us 6,199,080
us 6,205,454
US 2002/0116420 Al
Mar. 06, 2001
Mar. 20, 2001
Aug. 22, 2002
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 48, 50, 52, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, and 65 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dauerer.
2. Claims 51and64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dauerer in view of Nielsen. 2
3. Claims 53, 54, 58, 60, 66, and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dauerer in view Allam.
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, as pointed out by Appellant on pages 1-2 of the
Appeal Brief, there is a concurrent Appeal No. 2018---001508 (U.S.
Application 14/148,656), and a second concurrent Appeal No. 2017-009505
(U.S. Patent Application 14/193,441). 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
2 Claims 49, 56, and 62 are not included in this rejection because these
claims are canceled claims.
3
Appeal2017-009517
Application 14/193,453
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 in 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.
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).
4
Appeal2017-009517
Application 14/193,453
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5