Ex Parte 5251294 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2014

90012479 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
90/012,479 09/07/2012 5251294 10157-002RX3 3445
96039 7590 09/25/2014
Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
817 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30308
EXAMINER
WORJLOH, JALATEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WEBVENTION GROUP LLC,
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2014-007779
Reexamination Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and DENISE M. POTHIER,
Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
This proceeding arose out of a third party request by Lissi Mojica of
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A, for ex parte reexamination of
U.S. Patent No. 5,251,294 (“the ’294 patent”) to Daniel H. Abelow, entitled
Accessing, Assembling, and Using Bodies of Information, issued October 5, 1993,
and assigned to Webvention Group LLC. The ’294 patent relates to
computer-based systems for assembling, organizing, and distributing information.
Spec. 1:6-7. Appellant states that the ’294 patent has expired. Br. 15.
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

2

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from the decision in
the Final Rejection rejecting claims 28-33, 35, 37, 40-51, 53, 55, 59, 70, 72-74, and
77 of the ’294 patent. Br. 2.
The Examiner’s Answer incorporates by reference the rejections presented
in the Final Rejection mailed September 20, 2013. Ans. 2.
Appellant indicates that the ’294 patent is the subject of litigation and lists
various civil docket numbers. Br. 1. Requester indicates that the ’294 patent is
involved in other litigations. Request 9-10.
Requester indicates that the ’294 patent was the subject of two merged
reexaminations, Control Nos. 90/011,208 and 90/011,229. Request 13. These
proceedings resulted in the confirmation of claims 1-8, 12-21, 28-33, 35, 37,
40-44, 47, 48, 51, 53, 55, and 78 and the cancellation of claims 58 and 64-69.
October 4, 2011 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 2.
Owner further states the ’294 patent is the subject of another ex parte
reexamination assigned Control Number 90/011,948. Br. 1. This proceeding was
appealed to the Board, and on mailed April 16, 2014, the rejections of claims
28-33, 35, 37, 40-44, 47, 48, 51, 53, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 were
affirmed.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 28-33, 35, 37, 40-51, 53, 55, 59, 70,
72-74, and 77.
Claims 28 and 59 are illustrative and read as follows:
28. A computer-based method for aiding a user in accessing a body of stored
information which includes segments of related information, the method
comprising
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

3
displaying a set of labels, each label providing an abbreviated indication
of information content of a corresponding one of said segments,
said labels being displayed in an organized model reflecting relationships
among information contents of said corresponding segments,
enabling a user to point to individual labels in said model using an
electronic pointing technique, and
for each label to which said user points, displaying to the user, for
previewing, the information content of the corresponding segment.

59. A computer-based method for providing assistance to a user of an
application program comprising
in response to a user requesting assistance in the course of using said
program, displaying a set of labels, each label indicating the content of a
corresponding segment of assistance information, said labels being displayed
in an organized model, and
simultaneously while displaying said set of labels, displaying a segment
of assistance information corresponding to one of said labels selected by said
user.

Br. 35, 38, Claims App’x.

A. Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Mimi Jones & Dave Myers, Hands-On HyperCard: Designing Your Own
Applications 1-873 (1991) (“Hands-On HyperCard”).

Danny Goodman, The Complete HyperCard Handbook Second Edition 1- 187
(1988) (“Goodman”) (“The HyperCard Handbook”).

Patent Owner’s Claim Analysis in Basic American, Inc. et al v. Webvention
Holdings LLC et al, 1:11-cv-00092-SD (D. Del.) entitled “US Patent 5,251,294
(Abelow): Basic American Foods (pages accessed on July 28, 2010),” included in
Request, Ex. OTH-A, and labeled as Patent Owner’s Admissions (Admitted Prior
Art or “APA”).

Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

4
B. The Adopted, Proposed Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following proposed rejections:
Reference(s) Basis Claims Answer
Hands-On HyperCard
And APA § 103
28-33, 35,
42-51, 53, 55,
59, 70, 72-74,
and 77
Ans. 2
(referring to
Final Rej.
11-72)
Hands-On HyperCard,
APA, and The HyperCard
Handbook
103 37, 40, and 41
Ans. 2
(referring to
Final Rej.
73-75)

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on the arguments presented, Appellant raises the following issues:
Whether the Examiner erred by finding that Hands-On HyperCard and APA
teaches or suggests:
(1) displaying a set of labels, each label providing an abbreviated indication
of information content of a corresponding one of the segments as recited in
claim 28;
(2) for each label to which the user points, displaying to the user, for
previewing, the information content of the corresponding segment as recited in
claim 28?
(3) displaying a segment of assistance information corresponding to one of
the labels selected by the user as recited in claim 59?

III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
While claims are generally given their broadest possible scope during
prosecution, In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

5
Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a
district court’s review, Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1655,
1655-56 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 23, 1986); see also MPEP § 2258.I.G.
(directing Examiner to construe claims pursuant to Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), during reexamination
of an expired patent).

In re Rambus Inc., 694 F3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
“In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look
principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself,
the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine,
Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F3d. 1303, 1312-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Also,
“although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the
invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned against confining the claims
to those embodiments.” See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

IV. ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness Rejection Based on
Hands-On HyperCard and APA
1. Claims 28-33, 35, 42-51, 53, and 55
i. displaying a set of labels, each label providing an abbreviated indication
of information content of a corresponding one of said segments

Appellant argues that Hands-On HyperCard fails to disclose “displaying a
set of labels, each label providing an abbreviated indication of information content
of a corresponding one of said segments” recited in claim 28. Br. 19-21.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that the planets mapped to recited “labels” are
incapable of performing the recited function. Br. 19, 21. Additionally, Appellant
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

6
contends the “related information” of a segment in Hands-On HyperCard
corresponds to the invisible button – not the planets – and thus, there is no related
information corresponding the planets. Br. 19-20. We disagree.
We construe claim terms to have their ordinary meaning. Appellant does not
provide us with an ordinary meaning of a “label.” See Br. 16-17. Additionally,
although Appellant asserts that several of the terms in claim 28 are defined in the
’294 patent (Br. 16), we find no explicit definitions related to the disputed claim
language. See Ans. 4. For example, we find no definition for the disputed term
“label” at column 7, line 36 through column 9, line 46 cited by Appellant. Br. 16.
When we consider an ordinary meaning of “label,” we find that the term
includes:
“[a]n identifier. A label can be a physical item, such as a stick-on tag used
to identify disks and other computer equipment, or an electronic label added
to floppy disks or hard disks. It can also be a word, symbol, or other group
of characters used to identify a file, a storage medium, an element defined in
a computer program, or a specific item in a document such as a spreadsheet
or a chart.”1

As such, a “label” can be an identifier, such as a symbol or icon, used to identify
an element of computer program or specific item in document.
Appellant also discusses examples of a “label” in the ’294 patent. For
example, Appellant states a label includes “Our Company’s Internal Contexts”
shown in Figure 34A and Context 512 shown in Figures 40B. Br. 16 (citing the
’294 patent 26:43-48). The Specification describes displaying “the label” from the
Context Base screen 9002, called “Our Company’s Internal Contexts.” See the

1 Microsoft® Computer Dictionary 304 (5th ed. 2002).

Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

7
’294 patent 24:40-42; Figs. 34A, 137. Although this does not necessarily disclose
“Our Company’s Internal Contexts” is a label, the ’294 patent discloses displaying
a label from the screen, called “Our Company’s Internal Contexts.” As for the
discussed Figure 40B, Contexts are described as “elements of a situation (segments
of a body of information) that may be stored in a digital format and used in
Alternates . . . .” The ’294 patent 7:42-44. As such, contexts are described in the
’294 patent as elements of an information body’s segments and not necessarily as
labels. Appellant further argues that a label is a “guide.” Br. 24 (citing the ’294
patent 9:3-4). However, the ’294 patent describes the right “Guide” window 510
in Figure 40B includes text and graphics – not Context 512 – and defines a guide –
not a label – as “text and graphics . . . in each Context” See the ’294 patent 26: 43-
48, 9:3-4.
Appellant further discuses Figures 35A-35C and asserts that “422 (i.e., New
Products in IC Magazine)” is a label displayed from Context Base screen 9002 and
allows for previewing of information content of a corresponding segment. Br. 17
(citing the ’294 patent Figs. 35A, 137). In this embodiment when the user places
cursor 422 on the first Context in the list (e.g., “New Products in the IC
Magazine”), content is displayed in the Guide Window 424. The ’294 patent
24:48-51. We find that this text or title, which acts like a link revealing other
information, is one embodiment of a “label” recited in claim 28.
Appellant cites even further to other locations in the ’294 patent, arguing
that the terms “token” and “label” are used to refer to the Contexts displayed in the
Context Window. Br. 16 (citing the ’294 patent Abstract, 2:65-5:15, 16:14-18,
24:40-42). At least some of these passages described displaying underlying
segments of information when a user selects or points a token. See the ’294 patent
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

8
2:65-3:13, 16:14-18. However, the disclosure does not clearly indicate that tokens
and labels are synonymous. Moreover, although we turn to the ’294 patent’s
disclosure as a useful tool in understanding the terms in claim 28, we will not
confine the claim to the specific embodiments in the disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d
at 1323.
The rejection further relies on APA to assist in construing the term, “label.”
Final Rej. 19 (citing OTH-A, p. 5). In this proceeding, Appellant maps the term
“labels” to “a set of titled tabs,” such as “Foodservice Products.” See APA, first
page of claim mapping entitled “US Patent 5,251,294 (Abelow): Basic American
Foods (pages accessed on July 28, 2010).” Additionally, Appellant maps a
window with information appearing when the user “mous[ing] over” the titled tab
to the recited “for each label to which said user points, displaying to the user, for
previewing,” the information content of the corresponding segment. Final Rej. 19;
APA, third page of claim mapping entitled “US Patent 5,251,294 (Abelow): Basic
American Foods (pages accessed on July 28, 2010).” These statements amount to
admissions that the term “labels” includes titled tabs and the phrase “label to which
said user points” includes “mous[ing] over” a tab.
Appellant argues the website, www.baf.com, discussed in the context of the
APA cannot be prior art, because the website was published after the filing date of
the invention. Br. 24. We are not persuaded. The underlying website is not being
relied upon as an admission. See Final Rej. 19 (citing Request, Ex. OTH-A); see
also Request 25. Rather, the rejection relies upon the statements made by the
Appellant in court documents concerning how to construe the recited phrases,
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

9
“label” and “label to which said user points” in claim 28. 2 See id. Further, we
agree with the Examiner that, even if these admissions are not considered prior art,
Hands-On HyperCard still teaches or suggests all the limitations in claim 28. See
Final Rej. 8-9.
Based on the ordinary meaning of the term “label,” the disclosure, and the
APA, we find that the recited “label” in claim 28 includes identifiers to identify
other elements or items in a document, including but not limited only to titles, text,
or symbols (e.g., icons or images) that identify other information in a computer
program or document.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s mapping of an image of a planet (e.g., Saturn
or any other planet shown in Fig. 16.19) to the recited “label” in claim 28 is
reasonable. See Ans. 2-4 (citing Hands-On HyperCard 314, Fig. 16.19, and
Fig. 16.21 and mapping the label to a planet); see also Final Rej. 3, 13 (citing
Hands-On HyperCard 314, Figs. 16.19, and 16.21 and referring to “[e]ach image of
a planet”). Additionally, we find such an image is “an abbreviated indication of
information content of a corresponding one of the segments,” as recited. The
image of each planet is a visual indication of the planet, and information related to
the planet is made visible when the user points to the planet. Ans. 4 (citing Hands-
On HyperCard 318-19). Thus, the image itself relates to, and is an abbreviated
indication of, other information content (e.g., information related to the planet) that
becomes visible when the user points to the image.

2 The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §2217(III) and § 2258(I)(F)
permit admissions of Patent Owner in a court proceeding affecting patentability
(e.g., a position the Patent Owner took regarding the scope of the claims) to be
used in combination with a printed publication in reexamination proceedings.
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

10
Hands-On HyperCard further teaches that this information content is “of a
corresponding one of said segments [of related information]” as recited in
claim 28. Hands-On HyperCard states that buttons and fields are created and work
together to provide more information about each planet. See Hands-On HyperCard
314-15, Fig. 16.19. A button is created over each planet’s image (e.g., a label), and
thus the button and image (e.g., a visual indication) of its corresponding planet
have an association. See Hands-On HyperCard 316-317, Fig. 16.22. A field is
also created next to each planet’s image with information related to the planet (e.g.,
content such as diameter, moons, orbital period, and period of rotation), and the
collective field information (e.g., a segment of related information concerning a
planet that is part of the solar system) is stored within an information body. See
Hands-On HyperCard 316-18 (including Table 16.1), Fig. 16.23. Each segment
also contains related information to other segments, because the information about
each planet relates to the solar system as a whole. See id. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Hands-On HyperCard’s image of a planet is “an abbreviated
indication of information content of a corresponding one of the segments [of
related information],” which is included in “a body of stored information” as
recited in claim 28. Ans. 4; Final Rej. 4, 13. Contrary to Appellant’s assertions
(Br. 19), we further find that Hand-On HyperCard performs the recited function of
“providing an abbreviated indication of information content of a corresponding one
of said segments” as recited in claim 28.
Appellant argues that “the ‘labels’ in claim 28 correspond directly to the
information, not fields.” Br. 21. Yet, claim 28 does not require a direct
relationship between each label and information. Claim 28 merely recites “each
label provid[es] an abbreviated indication of information content of a
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

11
corresponding one of said segments [of related information.]” At best, claim 28
requires the label to provide an indication of the information content
corresponding to a related information segment. Moreover, the related information
concerns the segments (i.e., “segments of related information”) and not a
relationship between the label and information. Furthermore, there is no recitation
in claim 28 related to removing layering. Br. 21.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner’s mapping of the planet to the
recited “label” cannot perform the recited functionality because planets are artwork
and Hands-On HyperCard does not teach an associated script with the artwork but
rather with a button or field. Br. 20-21. We are not persuaded for the
above-discussed reasons, explaining how the planet’s image (e.g., a label) provides
an abbreviated indication of information content of a corresponding one of the
segments as recited by claim 28. Moreover, the Examiner is not proposing that the
script is directly connected to the label; rather, through the button and fields,
information is provided to the user. See Ans. 3-4.
Lastly, Appellant argues that Hands-On HyperCard only shows coarse
alignment with labels and that pointing to empty space results in information being
presented. Br. 20-21. Even if true, Hands-On HyperCard discloses at least one
embodiment, where the pointer (e.g., hand cursor) is located on a planet image
(e.g., Saturn) and thus “enable[s] a user to point to individual labels . . . using an
electronic pointing technique” as recited. See Ans. 3 (citing Fig. 16.19); see also
Hands-On HyperCard 314, Fig. 16.19.

Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

12
ii. for each label to which said user points, displaying to the user, for
previewing, the information content of the corresponding segment

Appellant contends that Hands-On HyperCard fails to teach the recitation,
“for each label to which said user points, displaying to the user, for previewing, the
information content of the corresponding segment.” Br. 22-23. In particular,
Appellant asserts that Hands-On HyperCard does not preview information as
required by claim 28, because all the information associated with the context or all
the information contained in field card associated with a script is displayed when a
pointer enters an invisible box. Br. 17-18, 22-23.
At the outset, we note that claim 28 does not recite an active step of
previewing as argued, but rather, “displaying to the user, for previewing, the
information content . . .” (emphasis added). This recited “previewing” step is an
intended use or functional limitation. Given that Hands-On HyperCard can present
information to the user when pointing to the label, as explained above, Hands-On
HyperCard teaches the ability to preview information content.
Even assuming claim 28 requires an active step of previewing, we further
find Hands-On HyperCard teaches previewing. The phrase, “previewing,” is not
found in the disclosure, other than the claims. See the ’294 patent 63:50.
Figure 35A shows that, when a user points cursor 422 to the first item in the list on
the left under New Products, labeled “New Products in IC Magazine,” eight lines
of three pages of text appears on the right in Guide window 424. Spec. 24:48-51;
Fig. 35A, 137. On the other hand, the disclosure includes an embodiment where
the entire text for “Editing for Content” is shown to the user. See Ans. 6-7 (citing
the ’294 patent, Fig. 57A). Thus, the disclosure provides embodiment that include
“previewing” eight line of content or the entire content.
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

13
We further find the ordinary and customary meaning of “previewing”
includes “‘an introductory or limited experience’.” See Br. 22 and Final Rej. 7
(citing Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 933). Applying this
interpretation to Hands-On HyperCard, we agree that displaying all information
contained in planet field card associated with a script reasonably maps to the
recited “displaying to the user, for previewing, the information content of the
corresponding segment.” That is, Hands-On HyperCard displays an introductory
or limited experience about a single planet rather than entire solar system. See
Final Rej. 7. Even more, Hands-On HyperCard discusses creating additional cards
that describe the planets in more depth, suggesting that the displayed information is
a preview to other information that describe the planets in more depth. See Final
Rej. 18 (citing Hands-On HyperCard 320). The information presented is also an
introductory or limited experience in that it presents limited (e.g., planet name,
diameter, moons and orbital period) and not extensive information about a single
planet. See Hands-On HyperCard 314, Fig. 16.19. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s
contentions (Br. 22-23), Hands-On HyperCard teaches displaying, for previewing,
the information content of the corresponding segment as recited in claim 28 using
the ordinary meaning of the phrase, “previewing.”
Appellant contends that the admissions in the court proceeding are not
inconsistent with the disclosure. Br. 23-24. Regardless of whether the phrase,
“point to” in claim 28 is construed to include moving a cursor near to or only on
the “label” (see Br. 24), Hands-On HyperCard displays information content when a
user points to an individual “label” as recited in claim 28 given our understanding
that an image of a planet is a “label.” In one example, described above, Hands-On
HyperCard teaches a hand cursor located on a planet’s image (e.g., Saturn) or
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

14
“label” reveals information about Saturn and thus displays to the user information
content for each label to which the user points. See Hands-On HyperCard 314,
Fig. 16.19.
As another example, Hands-On HyperCard discloses a script that displays
information when the user “mouses” within a button corresponding to planet (e.g.,
the image of Earth) and thus teaches or suggests displaying to the user information
content when the user points to a planet’s image or label. See Final Rej. 17-18
(citing Hands-On HyperCard 318-319). Moreover, as the Examiner notes, “the
user does not see the button, but only the planet. When a user points to the planet,
information about the planet is shown . . . .” Final Rej. 8; see also Final Rej. 16-
20 (citing Hands-On HyperCard 316-318). Thus, from the user’s perspective,
when the user points to a label (e.g., the image of Earth), Hands-On HyperCard
teaches “for each label to which said user points, displaying to the user, for
previewing, the information content of the corresponding segment” as recited in
claim 28. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
rejection of independent claim 28 and claims 29-33, 35, 42-51, 53, and 55 not
separately argued with particularity.
2. Claims 74 and 77
Independent claims 74 and 77 include means-plus-function limitations, and
these limitations are mapped to various corresponding structure in the disclosure.
See Br. 7, 25. For these claims, Appellant refers to the “same reasons as discussed
above with regard to claim 28” in contending that the claims are allowable and
does not argue with particularity that Hands-On HyperCard fails to teach any
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

15
specific means-plus-function limitations. Br. 25. For the reasons stated above,
Appellant has not persuaded us of error.
Appellant also quotes a claim limitation of “enabling a user to point to
individual labels” in claims 74 and 77 that is purportedly discussed in connection
with claim 28. Br. 26. We find no such argument presented for the “enabling”
claim language. Br. 14-25. Also, merely pointing out what claim 28 recites and
then asserting that the combination fails to teach this limitation is not considered a
separate argument for patentability. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011). Even so, for the reasons discussed above, we find that Hands-On
HyperCard teaches a mouse pointer that enables a user to point to individual
planet’s image and thus enables a user to point to individual labels as recited. See
Ans. 4 and Final Rej. 58 (citing Hands-on HyperCard 318).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
rejection of independent claims 74 and 77.
3. Claims 59 and 70
Independent claim 59 recites “each label indicating the content of a
corresponding segment of assistance information” and “displaying a segment of
assistance information corresponding to one of said labels selected by said user.”
Notably, claim 59 does not recite “previewing.” Appellant asserts that Hands-On
HyperCard does not teach the specific limitation of “corresponding segment of
assistance information” associated with the planets, because the reference at best
teaches corresponding buttons that provide information about the planet. Br. 26.
This argument is similar to that presented above in connection with claim 28, for
which we are not persuaded. The mapped corresponding segment of assistance
information in Hands-On HyperCard is the information about the planets, and
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

16
when the user moves the pointer over or near a planet (e.g., a label), the assistance
information is displayed within a window. Ans. 2 (citing Final Rej. 33-36 (citing
Hands-On HyperCard 314-315, 318-319, Fig. 16.19)), 9-10 (indicating that no
precise meaning of the phrase, “a segment of assistance information” has been
provided in the ’294 patent).
As such, contrary to Appellant’s assertions (Br. 26), Hands-On HyperCard
teaches each label indicates a recited “content of a corresponding segment of
assistance information” and displays “a segment of assistance information
corresponding to one or said labels selected by the user.” See Ans. 9-10; Final
Rej. 33-36. Moreover, as explained above, there is a script associated with the
planet’s image (e.g., a label) and pointing at the planet’s image results in an action
being performed that displays information. Br. 26-27. Lastly, as explained above,
APA assists in construing the term, “label,” to include an identifier or symbol, such
an image of a planet.
Concerning independent claim 70, we note this claim include means-plus-
function limitations, and these limitations are mapped to various corresponding
structure in the disclosure. See Br. 4, 27. Appellant fails to argue with
particularity that Hands-On HyperCard fails to teach any specific means-plus-
function limitations, but rather that “the apparatus of claim 70 is allowable for
substantially same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 59.” Br. 27.
As stated above, we disagree.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of
independent claims 59 and 70.

Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

17
4. Claims 72 and 73
Claim 72 include means-plus-function limitations, and these limitations are
mapped to various corresponding structure in the disclosure. See Br. 4-6, 28.
Although Appellant “submits that there is no such teaching in the Hands-On
HyperCard reference” (Br. 28), Appellant fails to argue with particularity that
Hands-On HyperCard fails to teach any specific means-plus-function limitations
found in this claim. Rather, Appellant’s arguments repeat that Hands-On
HyperCard teaches information associate with an invisible button – not a planet –,
teaching only artwork having no associated script or other functionality. See
Br. 28. We are not persuaded for the above reasons and further note that some of
the argued “teaching” purportedly not in Hands-On HyperCard are not recited in
claims 72 or 73, such as the direct correspondence between the label and the
segment. Rather, claim 72, for example, “the labels associated with said
segments” (emphasis added).
As for claim 73, Appellant quotes the dividing and providing step limitations
and then refers to the previous discussion of claim 72 related to Hands-On
HyperCard, asserting the reference does not associate information with the planet
but rather an invisible button. Br. 28-29. As explained above, we disagree.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
rejection of independent claims 72 and 73.
B. Obviousness Rejection Based on Hands-On HyperCard,
APA, and The HyperCard Handbook

Lastly, claims 37, 40, and 41 are rejected based on Hands-On HyperCard,
APA, and The HyperCard Handbook. Final Rej. 73-75. Appellant refers to
arguments presented for claim 28 and further contends that The HyperCard
Handbook does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Hands-On HyperCard and
Appeal 2014-007779
Control 90/012,479
Patent 5,251,294

18
APA. Br. 29-30. We disagree and refer to our above discussion for details.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 37,
40, and 41.

IV. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we affirm the rejections maintained by the
Examiner.

V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination proceeding
are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

ak

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC
817 W. Peachtree Street
Suite 500
Altanta, GA 30308

FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/Reexams
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402