Ex Parte Stallings et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2016

12651684 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/651,684 01/04/2010
25537 7590 03/09/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Heath STALLINGS
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.
20090138 9683
EXAMINER
GREENE, SABRINA LETICIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEATH STALLINGS and SOK Y. HWANG
Appeal2014-003933
Application 12/651,684
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4, 6-12, 15, 17-21, and 23-29, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. Claims 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16, and 22 have been
canceled. App. Br. 22-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiary
companies, which currently include Verizon Business Global, LLC
(formerly MCI, LLC) and Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon
Wireless, and which includes as a minority partner affiliates of Vodafone
Group Plc), as the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003933
Application 12/651,684
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed inserting a new graphical interface
panel at an appropriate location in a sequence of graphical interface panels
based on its similarity with the panels that are already in the sequence.
Spec. iTiT 52, 53, 58.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
displaying, on a screen of a computing device, a graphical
window that presents a panel from a sequence of panels,
each of the panels in the sequence of panels
including a group of items, and
the sequence of panels including an order
determined at least partially by the groups of
items included in the panels;
receiving, by the computing device, a command to add a
new panel to the sequence of panels;
determining, by the computing device, a similarity of the
ne\'l/ panel to each of the panels in the sequence of panels based
on:
determining a first quantity of items included in the
new panel,
determining a particular quantity of items of the
group of items included in each of the panels
in the sequence of panels,
comparing the first quantity of items to the
particular quantity of items included in each
of the panels in the sequence of panels, and
determining, based on the comparison, a particular
panel, of the panels in the sequence of panel,
that is most similar to the new panel; and
inserting, by the computing device and based on the
determined similarity, the new panel next to the particular panel
in the sequence of panels.
2
Appeal2014-003933
Application 12/651,684
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Miura et al. US 7,246,329 Bl July 1 7, 2007
Elgort et al. US 8,436,715 B2 May 7, 2013
REJECTION
Claims 1, 4, 6-12, 15, 17-21, and 23-29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Elgort. Final
Act. 2-16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We agree
with Appellants' arguments regarding the pending claims.
Appellants argue that neither of the cited prior art references teaches
or suggests "determining, by the computing device, a similarity of the new
panel to each of the panels in the sequence of panels" as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-5. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner
does not rely on Miura for that feature and Elgort involves the layout of
dining table and is not related to the similarity of a new panel to existing
panels. Id.
The Examiner finds Elgort teaches determining the similarity of a new
panel to the existing panels. Final Act. 4--5. More specifically, the
Examiner finds Elgort's Figure 5 teaches a flow chart for a method "for
3
Appeal2014-003933
Application 12/651,684
mapping a floor configuration of the dining room layout such that one or
more tables may be added, eliminated and/or reconfigured." Final Act. 4.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding Elgort
teaches or suggests "determining, by the computing device, a similarity of
the new panel to each of the panels in the sequence of panels." as recited in
claim 1. We reviewed the sections of Elgort relied on by the Examiner and
do not find any teaching of any similarity scores based on the factors set
forth in claim 1. Instead, Figure 5 merely determines if the new table
grouping provides information to match the layout template with the current
active layout and, if so, updating the floor configuration. See Elgort Fig. 5.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claim 12 and
21, which are argued on the same ground. We also reverse the rejection of
dependent claims 4, 6-11, 15, 17-20, and 23-29 for the same reasons.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1, 4, 6-12, 15, 17-21, and 23-29.
REVERSED
4