Ex Parte Efrati et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

13485231 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

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.
13/485,231 05/31/2012 Tzahi Efrati VI14 3108
72623 7590 02/21/2017
MOSFR TAROADA / VON A OF HOT DTNOS OORP
EXAMINER
1030 BROAD STREET WILLS, DIANE M
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis @ mtiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TZAHI EFRATI and URI MISCHARI
Appeal 2016-003678
Application 13/485,231
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for transitioning
between pages on a display screen. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 Appellants indicate that Vonage Network LLC is the real party in interest.
Appeal 2016-003678
Application 13/485,231
1. A computer-implemented method for scrolling between a
plurality of pages on a display device associated with a computer
comprising:
displaying, by the display device, a first page disposed in
front of at least two background layers, wherein a first
background layer of the at least two background layers is visible
through the first page;
receiving, by the computer, an input to scroll from the first
page to a second page disposed in front of the at least two
background layers; and
scrolling, by the computer, from the first page to the
second page, wherein scrolling from the first page to the second
page includes changing a color quotient of the first background
layer based on a change in position of a central part of the first
page as the first page scrolls to the second page, wherein the first
background layer becomes invisible and one or more second
background layers of the at least two background layers becomes
visible through the second page as the first page scrolls to the
second page.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Porras et al. US 2010/0137693 A1 June 3, 2010
SanGiovanni et al. US 2010/0251153 Al Sept. 30, 2010
Krishnaraj et al. US 2011/0126148 Al May26, 2011
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3—12, and 14—19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being anticipated by [sic, unpatentable over] Krishnaraj in view
of Porras.
2
Appeal 2016-003678
Application 13/485,231
Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Krishnaraj in view of Porras in further view of
SanGiovanni.
Claim 20 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over SanGiovanni in view of Porras.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1 and 12, Appellants present
arguments to the claims as a group. (App. Br. 6). We select independent
claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will address
Appellants’ arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants repeat the language
of the claim and generally contend that the Krishnaraj and Porras references
do not teach the claimed invention. (App. Br. 6). Appellants generally
address the Krishnaraj reference and contend “Krishnaraj fails to teach a
first page disposed in front of two or more background layers, where
changing the color quotient of the first background layer makes one or more
second background layers visible.” (App. Br. 7). Appellants generally
address the teachings of the Porras reference and generally disagree with the
combination and the proffered motivation statement by the Examiner. (App.
Br. 7).
Appellants’ paraphrase of the claim as it relates to “embodiments
consistent with the recited claims,” generally recites the language of the
claims again. (App. Br. 7—8).
We find Appellants’ arguments to be general arguments for
patentability that merely repeat the language of claim 1, generally
paraphrase the teachings of the Krishnaraj and Porras references, and
3
Appeal 2016-003678
Application 13/485,231
contend that the references do not teach or suggest “a first page disposed in
front of two or more background layers, where changing the color quotient
of the first background layer makes one or more second background layers
visible.” (App. Br. 7). Appellants repeat the Examiner’s proffered
motivation for the combination and generally contend that Appellants’
invention is in no way related to improvements in security or content
distribution control. As such, Appellants disagree that there is motivation to
combine Porras and Krishnaraj. (App. Br. 7). We find Appellants’
argument to be a general argument for patentability.
Appellants further contend that the screens and layers as disclosed in
the Porras reference are not “background layers” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants
do not identify any definition or context in the Specification or otherwise to
define or differentiate the “background layer” as recited in the language of
independent claim 1. Consequently, Appellants’ general arguments does not
show error in the Examiner’s findings of fact or conclusion of obviousness.
Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.”). Merely alleging that the references fail to support an
obviousness rejection is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error.
Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8
(BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693.pdf.
4
Appeal 2016-003678
Application 13/485,231
Here, we find Appellants’ arguments are conclusory in nature and fail
to address the thrust of the Examiner’s rejections.
“Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the
record.” In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole,
326 F.2d 769, 773 (CCPA 1964)). This reasoning is applicable here.
On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive
arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error. Cf. In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
Based upon our review of the record, we find Appellants have failed
to present substantive arguments supported with specific factual evidence of
sufficient character and weight to persuade us of error regarding the
Examiner’s findings of anticipation regarding the cited prior art.
We find Appellants’ general contentions to be unavailing and are not
specific arguments for patentability. With regards to Appellants’ proffered
distinction regarding the background layers, Appellants have not identified
any specific definition or context with respect to the claimed limitation from
the Specification. Nor have Appellants provided persuasive evidence that
the Examiner’s findings and claim interpretations are unreasonable or
overbroad.
Consequently, Appellants’ arguments do not show error in the
Examiner’s factual findings and conclusion of obviousness of representative
independent claim 1. Appellants have not set forth specific arguments for
patentability of independent claim 12 and dependent claims 3—11 and 14—19.
Consequently, we group these claims as falling with representative
independent claim 1.
5
Appeal 2016-003678
Application 13/485,231
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 13, Appellants rely upon the
arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 1 and 12 and
generally maintain the SanGiovanni reference does not remedy the
deficiency noted above. (App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 4). Since we found no
deficiency, we find Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner’s factual findings and conclusion of obviousness with respect to
dependent claims 2 and 13.
With respect to independent claim 20, Appellants present arguments
in a similar format addressed above with respect to independent claim 1.
Appellants repeat the language of the claim, paraphrase the reference, and
generally contend that the teachings of the SanGiovanni and Porras
references do not teach or suggest the claimed invention. (App. Br. 9—11).
The Examiner further explains the color quotient with regards to the
teachings of the SanGiovanni reference:
the examiner is defining the first page as the part of the canvas
that is visible and the second page as the part of the canvas that
is not visible. As the user scrolls from the first page to the second
page, the color quotient of both pages changes as the interactive
elements move (SanGiovanni, [0031], where interactive
elements can become selectable as they move towards the center
of the screen, and [0032], where visual transformations can be
applied to interactive elements to indicate their activity status is
changing; one of the transformations can be fading in or out
which maps to changing the color quotient; as you scroll from
one page to another the color quotient of both pages changes with
the part near the center of the screen becoming more visible).
(Ans. 4).
Appellants further rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to
independent claims 1 and 12, but the rejection is based upon a different
combination of references than that applied to independent claim 1. (Reply
6
Appeal 2016-003678
Application 13/485,231
Br. 4—5). Again, we find Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive of error
in the Examiner’s findings of fact or conclusion of obviousness with respect
to independent claim 1 as it applies to independent claim 20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—20 based upon
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7