Ex Parte Hauschild et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

13285813 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/285,813 10/31/2011 Frank HAUSCHILD
26646 7590 08/01/2016
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
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.
111501171 6994
EXAMINER
ZIMMERMAN, MARK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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@kenyon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK HAUSCHILD, MATHIAS KUHN,
and RAINER DEHMANN
Appeal2014-009967
Application 13/285,813
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 11. Claims 8, 10, and 12
have been canceled. See App. Br., Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction
over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Volkswagen AG.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-009967
Application 13/285,813
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to controlling the display of
information on a display area. Spec. 1: 10-11. Claim 1, which is illustrative,
reads as follows:
1. A method for controlling display of information on a
display surface, the information being structured hierarchically
in objects, comprising:
displaying an object and a path that leads to the object in
the hierarchical structure;
dividing the path into individual path elements, the path
elements belonging to different hierarchy levels of the path
leading to the object, and the path elements being selectable
buttons; and
when a path element is selected, changing the information
display to the hierarchy level of the selected path element;
wherein graphic symbols are respectively displayed in the
path elements for visualizing the hierarchy level of the path
element.
Rejection
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Morris (US 2006/0184892 Al; published Aug. 17,
2006). Final Act. 5-9.
2
Appeal2014-009967
Application 13/285,813
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Morris discloses "wherein
graphic symbols are respectively displayed in the path elements for
visualizing the hierarchy level of the path element," as recited in claim 1?
Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds:
Morris at figure 8 recites the displayed path element 814 as
"ts\Menu\lmages\cars\mycar.jpg." In addition, Morris at paragraph
[0026] recites "a node included in the displayed path." Moreover,
Morris at paragraph [0056] recites a node is "cars", a node is
"mycar.jpg." Further, Morris at paragraph [0055] recites "a node is an
image," wherein the image is a graphic icon. In other words, an
image or a graphic icon is used as a node in the displayed path 814.
Accordingly, Morris teaches the limitation of "graphic symbols are
respectively displayed in the path elements for visualizing the
hierarchy level of the path element."
Ans. 2-3.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Morris fails to disclose that graphic symbols are respectively displayed in
the path elements, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants contend Morris, instead, discloses "the paths displayed in the
location bars 202, 302, 402, 502, 602, 814 in Figures 2 to 6 and 8,
respectively, merely include text description in the path." App. Br. 3.
Appellants further contend Morris discloses that "the image mycar.jpg and
the identifiers for children of the node are merely shown on the content
panes 504 and 204, and not shown in the location bar 502 or 202." App.
Br. 4. We agree.
Morris discloses "the system 800 can be configured to perform a
default action based on a type or an identity of the node when the input
3
Appeal2014-009967
Application 13/285,813
subsystem determines that the node is selected using the selection
component." Morris i-f 55. Morris further discloses "if the node is an image
or video file, such as the image file 'mycar.jpg' shown in FIG. 8, the default
action can be displaying the image or video file, or a representation thereof,
on the display 804." Id. Figure 8 of Morris depicts the image displayed in a
content pane of the display and not in the displayed path, as required by
claim 1.
We note that in an ex parte appeal, the Board "is basically a board of
review-we review ... rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte
Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BP AI 2001 ). "The review authorized by
35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby the examiner ... invite[s]
the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve patentability in the first
instance." Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999). In this
instant case, we have not been presented with a rejection of independent
claim 1 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Morris
and Lim et al., (US 2006/0265588 Al; published Nov. 23, 2006) (cited by
the Examiner as being pertinent to Appellants' disclosure (Final Act. 9) ),
which appears to teach or suggest graphic symbols being respectively
displayed in the path elements for visualizing the hierarchy level of the path
element (see Lim, Fig. 4). We leave further consideration to the Examiner.
Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Therefore, for the reasons supra, we do not sustain the rejection of
4
Appeal2014-009967
Application 13/285,813
independent claim 1 and, for the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 11.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 11.
REVERSED
5