Ex Parte Alessi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 201310342159 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/342,159 01/14/2003 INV001Mark A. Alessi 02DIS021CPUSUTL 820.020 8579 77755 7590 03/20/2013 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o Ference & Associates LLC 409 Broad Street Pittsburgh, PA 15143 EXAMINER AMIN, JWALANT B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2677 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2013 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 APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte MARK A. ALESSI, ALBERTO GABRIEL MENDOZA PADIAL, and HL COURTLAND WHITED _____________ Appeal 2010-009531 Application 10/342,159 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before, DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009531 Application 10/342,159 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-11, 21, and 24-35.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for displaying an illustrated book on a computer screen that includes magnifying the size of the text without magnifying the graphic image. Spec. 2-4. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for displaying an illustrated book on a computer screen, comprising: displaying a graphics image, corresponding to a page in the illustrated book, on the computer screen; displaying a non-magnified text detail image defined as at least one of a word balloon, a dialog balloon or a description box on the computer screen, the non-magnified text detail image being displayed as a layer on the top of and at least partially covering the graphics image; detecting a cursor rolling over the non-magnified text detail image; displaying a magnified image of the text detail image when the cursor has rolled over the non-magnified text detail image without adjusting the display of the graphics image on the computer screen. REFERENCES Adegeest US 5,872,573 Feb. 16, 1999 Murata US 2002/0087555 A1 Jul. 4, 2002 1 Claims 12-20, 22, and 23 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2010-009531 Application 10/342,159 3 Minagawa US 2002/0122039 A1 Sep. 5, 2002 Rodriguez US 6,704,034 B1 Mar. 9, 2004 Bast US 2005/0114796 A1 May 26, 2005 Shiran, Yehuda, “Changing the Font Size on the Fly,” Aug. 21, 2000, pp. 1-3. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2 Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, 21, 24-26, 29, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Murata, Shiran, and Adegeest. Ans. 3-8. Claims 4 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Murata, Shiran, Adegeest, and Minagawa. Ans. 8-9. Claims 5, 8, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Murata, Shiran, Adegeest, and Bast. Ans. 9. Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Murata, Shiran, Adegeest, and Rodriguez. Ans. 10-12. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Murata, Shiran, and Adegeest teaches or suggests the following limitations of claim 1: 2 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejections over claims 33-35. Ans. 2. Appeal 2010-009531 Application 10/342,159 4 a. Displaying a magnified image of the text detail image without adjusting the display of the graphics image on the computer screen? b. Non-magnified text detail image being displayed as a layer on the top of and at least partially covering the graphics image? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Murata, Shiran, Adegeest, and Bast teaches or suggests: a. Receiving a selected size for the magnified image and magnifying the image to the selected size, as required by claims 5 and 28? b. A user selecting the image resolution, as required by claims 8 and 31? ANALYSIS Appellants select claims 1, 10, and 24 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 21, 24-27, 29, 30, and 32. App. Br. 7, 12. Each of claims 1, 10, and 24 require displaying a non-magnified text detail image as a layer on top of and partially covering the graphics image and displaying a magnified image of the text detail image without adjusting the graphics image. Appellants argue that none of the references cited by the Examiner teach the disputed limitations. App. Br. 8-12. Specifically, Appellants argue that Shiran adjusts and changes both the text and the graphics when the text detail is magnified. App. Br. 8. Appellants provide a picture of the browser with unmagnified text and magnified text wherein the magnified text shows that the layout is reflowed in the browser. App. Br. 9. Thus, Appellants contend that as the text is magnified, the portions of the document below the magnified text are shifted down, which is contrary to Appeal 2010-009531 Application 10/342,159 5 the claimed invention that requires the underlying display to be unaffected. App. Br. 9-10. Additionally, Appellants argue that Shiran’s graphics are not a separate layer, are unrelated to the text, and do not underlie the text. App. Br. 10-11. However, the Examiner finds that it is the combination of the references that teach these specific limitations and not solely Shiran. Ans. 3- 6. We agree with the Examiner. The Examiner finds that Murata teaches an illustrated book displayed on a computer screen that contains word balloons; that Shiran teaches increasing the size of font on a computer screen; and that Adegeest teaches using different layers for a graphics image and for text and the ability to modify the text without modifying the graphics image. Ans. 3-6 and 19-22. Thus, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine all of these teachings and arrive at the claimed invention. Ans. 3-6 and 19-22. We agree with the Examiner findings and also find that the combination of these elements is nothing more than a simple substitution of known elements by known methods to produce a predictable result. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 21, 24-27, 29, 30, and 32. Regarding claims 5 and 28, Appellants argue that Murata, Shiran, Adegeest, and Bast do not teach selecting a size for magnifying the text and displaying the magnified image according to the size selected because Bast teaches zooming in and out the display of a mobile phone, not increasing/decreasing the size of text. App. Br. 12-13. However, the Examiner finds that Shiran discloses this limitation, not Bast. Ans. 23. For instance, the Examiner finds that Shiran’s programming selects and displays the font size as 30 when the mouse is moved over the text. Ans. 23. While none of the references teach specifically allowing a user to change the size Appeal 2010-009531 Application 10/342,159 6 of the text, the claims do not require that a user indicate the size of the text. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s finding and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 28. Regarding claims 8 and 31, Appellants argue that Murata, Shiran, Adegeest, and Bast do not teach displaying a user selected image resolution because Bast teaches zooming and not changing the resolution of the graphic display. App. Br. 14. However, the Examiner finds that when an image is zoomed in or out, the resolution of the image is also affected. Ans. 24. Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s specific finding. Thus, we agree with the Examiner and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 31. CONCLUSION 1. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Murata, Shiran, and Adegeest teaches or suggests the following limitations of claims 1, 10, and 24: a. Displaying a magnified image of the text detail image without adjusting the display of the graphics image on the computer screen; and b. Non-magnified text detail image being displayed as a layer on the top of and at least partially covering the graphics image. 2. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Murata, Shiran, Adegeest, and Bast teaches or suggests: a. Receiving a selected size for the magnified image and magnifying the image to the selected size, as required by claims 5 and 28; and b. A user selecting the image resolution, as required by claims 8 and 31. Appeal 2010-009531 Application 10/342,159 7 SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-11, 21, and 24-35 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation