Ex Parte Beck et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201612907868 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/907,868 10/19/2010 45833 7590 08/31/2016 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/APPLE POBOX2938 SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 Nils Beck 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. 772.186US1 2758 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANH TUAN V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2016 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NILS BECK and CONRAD CARLEN Appeal2015-006693 Application 12/907 ,868 1 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants have appealed to the Board from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. (App. Br. 2). Appeal2015-006693 Application 12/907,868 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-9 and 16-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathes et al. (US 7,912,829 Bl, issued Mar. 22, 2011), Hom (US 2008/0021921 Al, published Jan. 24, 2008), and Aronoff et al. (US 2005/0065851 Al, published Mar. 24, 2005). App. Br. 13. Claims 10-13 and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathes and Vanhatalo (US 2006/0238628 Al, published Oct. 26, 2006). App. Br. 18. Claim 14 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathes, Vanhatalo, and Hom. App. Br. 21 THE CLAIMED INVENTION According to the application, the present invention relates generally displaying information to a user in a window on an electronic device, and more particularly to integrating a fit-to-size scale factor in a sequence of scale factors for display. Spec. i-fi-f l-2. Independent claims 1 and 16 are directed to methods; independent claim 10 is directed to an electronic device; and independent claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer- readable medium. App. Br. 24--26, 28. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method for integrating a fit-to-size scale factor in a sequence of scale factors, the method comprising: identifying a size of a display window; identifying an original size of information to display; identifying a sequence of scale factors to provide a user selectable sequence of scale factors; 2 Appeal2015-006693 Application 12/907,868 determining, from the identified size of the display window and the identified original size of the information, a fit-to-size scale factor; integrating the determined fit-to-size scale factor in the identified sequence of scale factors in a position corresponding to consecutively ordered scale factors to update the user selectable sequence of scale factors to include the determined fit-to-scale factor; receiving an input to re-size the display window; re-sizing the display window; and determining a new fit-to-size scale factor based on dimensions of the re-sized window and the identified original size of the information; and replacing the determined fit-to-size scale factor in the identified sequence of scale factors with the new fit-to-size scale factor and shifting the new fit-to-size scale factor to a new position within the user selectable sequence of scale factors to maintain consecutively ordered scale factors. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejections in the Final Action, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments in the Examiner's Answer. On the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred in finding the combination of Mathes, Hom, and Aronoff teaches or suggests "integrating the determined fit-to-size scale factor in the identified sequence of scale factors in a position corresponding to consecutively ordered scale factors to update the user selectable sequence of scale factors to include the determined fit-to-scale factor ... determining a new fit-to-size scale factor based on dimensions of the re-sized window and the identified original size of the information; and replacing the determined fit-to-size scale factor in the identified sequence of 3 Appeal2015-006693 Application 12/907,868 scale factors with the new fit-to-size scale factor and shifting the new fit-to- size scale factor to a new position within the user selectable sequence of scale factors to maintain consecutively ordered scale factors," as recited in claim 1. Appellants argue Aronoff s menu in a sorted order does not teach or suggest ordering scale factors or the claimed shifting of scale factors "within the user selectable sequence of scale factors to maintain consecutively ordered scale factors." App. Br. 15. The Examiner responds that it would be obvious to keep Mathes' s multiple scale factors "in consecutive order like the sorted menu of Aronoff in order to have an orderly and user-friendly interface." Ans. 4. Mathes discloses "a scaled image is displayed by default" and "a zoom dropdown menu can be presented to the user with options such as 50%, 7 5%, default (the scaled size), zoom to fit, or actual size." Mathes col. 4, 11. 65---66, col. 5, 11. 2--4. In other words, Mathes teaches scaling an image and displaying the scaled image with a dropdown menu of various zoom sizes or scale factors including a zoom to fit. Hom discloses "[r]esizing the window also resizes the image to fit the window." Hom i-f 114. In other words, Hom teaches resizing a window and automatically resizing an image to fit the new window size. Aronoff discloses a "user can create their own, customized views of the menu, for example by sorting the menu items by price, or salt content" and the "menu is dynamic and always up to date." Aronoffi-f 249. In other words, Aronoff teaches a menu that offers user customizable sorting of menu items. 4 Appeal2015-006693 Application 12/907,868 Contrary to the Examiner's findings, Aronoff merely provides for customizing a menu by sorting its items, while Mathes and Hom teach displaying a scaled image and scale factor options and that an image is resized when the window is resized. As such, the combination of Mathes, Hom, and Aronoff does not teach or suggest "integrating the determined fit- to-size scale factor in the identified sequence of scale factors in a position corresponding to consecutively ordered scale factors to update the user selectable sequence of scale factors to include the determined fit-to-scale factor .. . determining a new fit-to-size scale factor based on dimensions of the re-sized window and the identified original size of the information; and replacing the determined fit-to-size scale factor in the identified sequence of scale factors with the new fit-to-size scale factor and shifting the new fit-to- size scale factor to a new position within the user selectable sequence of scale factors to maintain consecutively ordered scale factors," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We are further persuaded the Examiner has erred in finding the combination of Mathes and Vanhatalo teaches or suggests to "determine that a fit-to-size scale factor associated with the window and with the information is between the initial scale factor and the next scale factor; and display the information using the fit-to-size scale factor in the window," as recited in claim 10. Appellants argue the claims represent an order of scale factors wherein the fit-to-size scale factor is positioned between the initial scale factor and the next scale factor, and Vanhatalo does not contemplate such a scenario and instead teaches skipping the next scale factor if the zoom-to-fit 5 Appeal2015-006693 Application 12/907,868 scale factor is close enough to justify doing so. App. Br. 18-20. The Examiner responds that Vanhatalo teaches a scenario where the fit-to-screen zoom ratio is positioned before the next easy zoom ratio. Ans. 8-9. Vanhatalo describes zooming out from an easy zoom ratio ZR, calculating an easy zoom ratio ZRN that is smaller than ZR, calculating the fit-to-screen zoom ratio ZF that is smaller than ZRN, and either setting the next zoom ratio ZD to be ZRN or skipping ZRN and setting ZD to be ZF. See Vanhatalo Fig. 5. In other words, Vanhatalo teaches an initial scale factor as the easy zoom ratio ZR that is being zoomed out, a next scale factor as the calculated easy zoom ratio ZRN, and a fit-to-size scale factor as the fit-to-screen zoom ratio ZF; and Vanhatalo teaches potentially utilizing the next scale factor ZRN as the next zoom ratio or skipping the next scale factor ZRN to utilize the fit-to-screen zoom ratio ZF as the next scale factor. Contrary to the Examiner's findings, Vanhatalo's fit-to-size scale factor either comes after the next scale factor, or the next scale factor is skipped entirely in lieu of the fit-to-size scale factor. As such, the combination of Mathes and V anhatalo does not teach or suggest to "determine that afit-to-size scale factor associated with the window and with the information is between the initial scale factor and the next scale factor," as recited in claim 10 (emphasis added). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10. Independent claims 16 and 20 are commensurate in scope with independent claim 1, and claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-19 are dependent on the independent claims. We do not sustain the rejections of these claims for the reasons stated above with regard to claims 1 and 10. 6 Appeal2015-006693 Application 12/907,868 DECISION The rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation