Ex Parte Parsons

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14148656 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/148,656 01/06/2014 Vincent L. Parsons
111003 7590 07/09/2018
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.P623Cl 5720
EXAMINER
NUNEZ, JORDANY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /09/2018 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)
Appeal2018---001508
Application 14/148,656
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. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001508
Application 14/148,656
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 48, 50-56, 58---62, and 64---66. 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 (with text in bold for emphasis):
48. A computer implemented method for displaying information on a
display device having a viewing area, the method comprising:
displaying at least a portion of information organizable by section
labels;
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, scrolling the information while
simultaneously maintaining display of the first section label at a
location and scrolling a second section label corresponding to a
second section of the information, wherein the second section label is
positioned between the first section of the information and the second
section of the information; 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 first section label with the second section label at the
location by scrolling the first section label out of the viewing area
while the second section label scrolls into the location that had
been occupied by the first section label.
2
Appeal 2018-001508
Application 14/148,656
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Nielsen
Dauerer
Allam
US 6,199,080 Bl
US 6,205,454 Bl
US 2002/0116420 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Mar. 6, 2001
Mar. 20, 2001
Aug. 22, 2002
1. Claims 48, 53, 54, 56, 60-62, and 66 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dauerer.
2. Claims 50, 58, and 64 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Dauerer in view of Nielsen.
3. Claims 51, 52, 55, 59, and 65 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Dauerer in view of Allam.
ANALYSIS
On page 1 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant points out that Appeal No.
2017-009505 is currently pending in U.S. Patent Application 14/193,441,
which is a continuation of the present application, and Appeal No. 2017-
009517 is currently pending in U.S. Patent Application 14/193,453, which is
a continuation of the present application. The issues in each of these appeals
3
Appeal 2018-001508
Application 14/148,656
are similar such that the respective analysis and outcome are the same for
each of these applications.
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
Critical to the analysis herein is claim interpretation of the term
"scrolling" within the claim recitation of "replacing the first section label
with the second section label at the location by scrolling the first section
label out of the viewing area while the second section label scrolls into the
location that had been occupied by the first section label."
Appellant refers to several parts of the Specification and to the plain
meaning of this term, in support of the proffered claim interpretation.
Appeal Br. 5---6. However, we are not persuaded by Appellant's stated
position in the record that the Specification requires interpreting "scrolling"
to mean pixel-by-pixel2 as submitted by Appellant. As such, we agree with
the Examiner that the kind of movement taught in Dauerer is scrolling
movement within the meaning of the term, and therefore agree with the
2 Or line-by-line or page-by-page, for that matter, as the Specification does
not exclude any of these types of movements.
4
Appeal 2018-001508
Application 14/148,656
Examiner that Dauerer does anticipate the claims for the reasons provided by
the Examiner in the record. Ans. 2-12.
In view of the above 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. 9.
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