Ex Parte Anwar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2016

12750276 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016)

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.
12/750,276 03/30/2010 Majid ANWAR 5000-1-1281CON2 8513
33942 7590
Cha & Reiter, LLC
17 Arcadian Avenue
Suite 208
Paramus, NJ 07652
12/08/2016 EXAMINER
PIZIALI, JEFFREY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2016 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 MAJID ANWAR
Appeal 2016-000460
Application 12/750,2761
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN R. KENNY, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 13, 15, 18—20, 28, 30, and 33—35, which are all of the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to “viewing and manipulating a display of
digital documents.” Abstract.
Representative Claim
Claim 13 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations
at issue emphasized:
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Industrial
Electronics Co., Ltd. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-000460
Application 12/750,276
13. A device for displaying additional information of content
having map data, comprising:
a touch screen display configured to detect a tactile input
and displaying content having map data of a screen document
and a zoomed document which is a view of a content of a selected
portion of the screen document that is zoomed in for
enlargement;
a processor configured to receive the tactile input for
displaying the zoomed document and configuring a display of
content including the selected portion of the screen document to
generate the zoomed document with an additional information
including user interest information in the zoomed document in
response to the tactile input,
wherein the processor uses a tool document file
comprising a tool code for processing the selected portion of the
screen document appearing within an area of a magnifying tool
to generate the zoomed document, and wherein the processor is
configured to generate a display of a tool icon or a tool button
associated with the magnifying tool when in response to
receiving tactile input that pushes the magnifying tool off a
viewable area of the touch screen display.
Rejection
Claims 13, 15, 18—20, 28, 30, and 33—35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Mullet et al. (US
5,638,523; June 10, 1997), DeLorme et al. (US 6,321,158 Bl; Nov. 20,
2001), and Du (US 6,732,120 Bl; May 4, 2004). Final Act. 3.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Mullet teaches or suggests “the
processor is configured to generate a display of a tool icon or a tool button
associated with the magnifying tool when in response to receiving . . . input
that pushes the magnifying tool off a viewable area of the . . . display,” as
recited in representative claim 13?
2
Appeal 2016-000460
Application 12/750,276
ANALYSIS
The Prior Art: Mullet
Mullet teaches a graphical user interface, such as a map, with a
“browsing tool which resembles a magnifying glass” in which “the browsing
tool is moved about the screen” and “information within the magnifying
reticle is enhanced [i.e., magnified].” Mullet at Abstract, Figs. 3A—3B.
Figure 3B of Mullet is reproduced below.
Figure 3B of Mullet depicts a map of the San Francisco bay area in
which “an operator positioned the browsing tool 10 onto the city of San
Francisco” and “the contents in viewing area 15 [within the browsing tool
10] becomes enhanced [i.e., magnified].” Mullet 6:5—8, 2:41—43.
Obviousness
Claim 13 recites “the processor is configured to generate a display of
a tool icon or a tool button associated with the magnifying tool when in
response to receiving . . . input that pushes the magnifying tool off
a viewable area of the . . . display.” Independent claim 28 recites a
commensurate limitation.
3
Appeal 2016-000460
Application 12/750,276
The Examiner relies on Mullet for teaching this limitation. The
Examiner interprets “a viewable area” to mean “a viewable location, portion,
section, or part (not necessarily all) of the . . . display.” Ans. 25. Thus, the
Examiner finds “a viewable area” in Mullet could be the subset of the screen
currently under Mullet’s browsing tool. Ans. 22—23. Based on this
interpretation, when Mullet’s browsing tool is moved about the screen (e.g.,
moving from Figure 3 A to 3B), the Examiner finds the browsing tool has
been pushed “off a viewable area of the . . . display.” Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s interpretation of “a viewable area”
is unreasonably broad and divorced from the Specification. Reply Br. 2—5.
Although we agree with Appellant that an interpretation of a claim term
should be made in light of the Specification, the only portion of the
Specification discussed by Appellant discloses “pushing] the magnifying
tool 48 off the screen 26.'” Spec. 18 (emphasis added), FIG. 7B; Reply Br.
4. The Examiner correctly notes “the instant claims do not recite pushing
the magnifying tool off ‘the display screen.’” Ans. 25 (emphasis omitted).
Instead, the claim recites being pushed off “a viewable area of the display.”
Thus, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the claim as written.
Other portions of the Specification, however, are informative.
A portion of Figure 4 of the present application is reproduced below.
4
Appeal 2016-000460
Application 12/750,276
“Figure 4 depicts a display 26 that includes a screen document 42,
which in this view appears as a map. Figure 4 further depicts the
magnifying glass tool 48 that includes the lens area 50.” Spec. 16.
“Additionally, however, the magnifying glass may be associated with tool
code that changes that color of the information, or a portion of the
information, within the viewing area 50.'” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the
Specification teaches that “the viewing area 50” is a subset of the display 26,
specifically the subset underneath the magnifying glass. This is identical to
the Examiner’s interpretation of “a viewable area” in Mullet.
Other portions of the Specification further confirm that a “view” need
only be a part of what is displayed: “The required view may be of all the
documents, a whole document or of parts of one or some of the documents.”
Spec. 11 (emphasis added). “For example, the system 10 may be required to
generate a zoomed view of part of a document.” Id. (emphasis added).
Similarly, for Figure 3, the Specification discloses “the document 44 being
displayed within the largest viewing area of the screen document 52”, which
5
Appeal 2016-000460
Application 12/750,276
further confirms a “viewing area” can be a subset of the screen. Id. at 15
(emphasis added). The Federal Circuit has held that “the specification is
always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”
Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
(quotation omitted). Based on the Specification here, Appellant has not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in construing “a viewable area” to
mean a “part” of a display or in finding Mullet teaches or suggests this
limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 13 as well as independent claim 28 and dependent claims 15, 18—20,
30, and 33—35, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons
and fall with representative claim 13. See App. Br. 10; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 13, 15, 18—20, 28, 30, and 33—35.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6