Ex Parte Hollemans et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 30, 201610596901 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 10/596,901 06/28/2006 23510 7590 10/04/2016 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mad) 100 East Wisconsin A venue Suite 3300 Milwaukee, WI 53202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gerrit Hollemans 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. 209338-9002-USOO 1985 EXAMINER HUR,ECE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2172 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2016 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): madipdocket@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GERRIT HOLLEMANS, VINCENTIUS PAUL US BUIL, and MARCO VAN LEEUWEN Appeal2015-006249 Application 10/596,901 Technology Center 2100 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. ivIANTIS ivIERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-006249 Application 10/596,901 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejections of claims 1, 6-10, 14--16, 18, and 22-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a graphical user interface for navigating through content, the graphical user interface having a history panel wherein navigation history data is displayed, and at least a first panel displaying a first menu of a content structure, the first menu comprising one or more selectable items. Spec. 1 :23-27. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system having a graphical user interface for navigating through content, the system comprising: a display having: a navigation history panel for displaying navigation history data, and at least one static panel displayed alongside the navigation history panel, the at least one static panel comprising: at least a first menu of a content structure, the first menu including one or more selectable items; wherein the navigation history data is selectable in the navigation history panel to revert the first menu in the at least one static panel to a previously displayed menu of the content structure; wherein the navigation history data provides a reference for at least one of a number of selections in accordance with a plurality of criteria; and 2 Appeal2015-006249 Application 10/596,901 wherein the navigation history data displayed in the navigation history panel is updated with reference to the selection of items in the static panel. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Shalit et al. McCollum et al. Hally et al. Brittingham et al. us 5,714,971 US 2003/0112467 Al US 2004/0207 666 A 1 US 7,904,358 B2 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Feb.3, 1998 June 19, 2003 Oct. 21, 2004 Mar. 8, 2011 Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 14--16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCollum in view of Hally. Claims 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McColl um in view of Hally and further in view of Shalit. Claims 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCollum in view of Hally and further in view of Brittingham. ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of McColl um and Hally teaches the limitation of: "navigation history data is selectable in the navigation history panel to revert the first menu in the at least one static panel to a previously displayed menu of the content structure," as recited in claim 1. 3 Appeal2015-006249 Application 10/596,901 ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue that segments 502 and 504 of Hally's virtual address bar 402 represent filters and they are not related to navigation history (App. Br. 9). Appellants assert that the segments locate files related to files represented by the segment and there is no suggestion that the user can select segments 502 and 504 "to revert ... to previously displayed menu" as recited by claim 1 (App. Br. 9). We do not agree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that McCollum teaches in Figures 4c and 4d, that the menu is reverted if a user selects "Entertainment Guide," wherein a relevant sub menu on the right panel is displayed, and if the user selects an item from "Entertainment Guide" sub- menu, for example in this case TV shows, then the left menu display/panel displays "Entertainment Guide" and "TV Shows" and the right menu displays the sub-menus for TV Shows (Ans. 2-3 (citing McCollum, Abstract, Figs. 2, 4C-E, N, paras. 52, 53)). In particular, we agree that McCollum teaches a menu structure that allows for navigation through different options (para. 53, stating that the "menu structure allows users to efficiently navigate through a vast number of programs"). While the Examiner acknowledges that McCollum does not specifically disclose the claimed aspect of navigation history data being selectable to revert to a previously displayed menu, the Examiner relies on Hally for teaching, in Figures 5A, 504, and 5B, the navigation history data selection reverting to a previous menu display (Halley, Figs. 4, 5A, paras. 11, 31, 33, according to item selection, 404 displays the history/path, each 4 Appeal2015-006249 Application 10/596,901 segment corresponds to selection, 402, 404 that is displayed alongside of the static panel with selection) (Ans. 3). In other words, virtual address bar 402, when compared between Figures 5A and 5B, illustrates the navigation history and correlates with the displayed info in the viewer 400 (see Figures 5A and 5B). The Examiner finds that although Hally is illustrating navigation as it applies to filtering, Hally nonetheless teaches considered navigation and selecting items which lead back/reverts to previous items (Hally, Figs. 4, 5A, paras. 11, 31, 33, according to item selection, 404 displays the history/path, each segment corresponds to selection, 402, 404 is displayed alongside of the static panel with selection, interactive on items (filtered items, however still displaying navigation history)) (Ans. 3--4). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of McCollum and Hally teach the disputed limitation of "navigation history data is selectable in the navigation history panel to revert the first menu in the at least one static panel to a previously displayed menu of the content structure" as recited in claim 1. Appellants further argue that the proposed modification to Hally's segments to provide a navigation history data that is "selectable ... to revert the first menu in the at least one static panel to a previously displayed menu of the content structure" suggests eliminating the filtering aspect of the segments if the segments were to remain operable after the proposed modification (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants assert that eliminating the filtering aspect of Hally's segments, changes the principle operation of the virtual address bar 402 and segments 502, 504, etc. (App. Br. 11 ). 5 Appeal2015-006249 Application 10/596,901 We do not agree with Appellants' argument. We agree with the Examiner that while McCollum does not specifically disclose the claimed aspect of the elements representing navigation history data being active elements, Hally teaches the claimed aspect in Figures 4, 5A, wherein 404, 402 displays reference to previously selections (Halley, Figs. 4, 5A, 5B, paras. 11, 31, 33, according to item selection, 404 displays the history/path, each segment corresponds to selection, 402, 404, Abstract, interactive segments) (Ans. 4--5). Thus, we also agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add Hally's feature of active elements to McCollum because it would have allowed the user to view the navigation path while they are selecting content as illustrated by Hally, which would in tum allow the users to be reminded of their selections for later on, as well as interactively changing their selections (Ans. 4--5). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 6-10, 14--16, 18, and 22-24. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of McCollum and Hally teaches the limitation of: "navigation history data is selectable in the navigation history panel to revert the first menu in the at least one static panel to a previously displayed menu of the content structure" as recited in claim 1. 6 Appeal2015-006249 Application 10/596,901 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6-10, 14-- 16, 18, and 22-24 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)(l )(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation