Ex Parte Johansson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

13133542 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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.
9342-509/PS10 1734 3885
EXAMINER
XIA, XUYANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/133,542 06/08/2011
54414 7590
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
12/09/2016
Fredrik Johansson
12/09/2016 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 FREDRIK JOHANSSON
Appeal 2016-001163
Application 13/133,542
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 through 21, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2016-001163
Application 13/133,542
INVENTION
This invention is directed to an electronic device with a scroll bar in
the graphical user interface for navigating the display screen. The scroll bar
includes an options menu that can be accessed by expanding the scrollbar.
See Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below.
A method of operating an integrated scrollbar
options menu in a graphical user interface of an electronic
device, comprising:
highlighting a scrollbar that is operable to scroll
display content in a first direction corresponding to an axis
of the scrollbar in response to a first navigational
movement of the scrollbar in the first direction
corresponding to the axis and that includes the integrated
scrollbar options menu; and
accessing the integrated scrollbar options menu by
expanding the scrollbar using a second navigational
movement of the scrollbar that is different from the first
navigational movement and includes dragging the
scrollbar from a collapsed position that hides the
integrated scrollbar options menu toward an expanded
position that displays the integrated scrollbar options
menu.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9 through 15, and
17 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guido et al.
(US 2006/0075357 Al; Apr. 6, 2006), Duncan et al. (US 7,477,233 B2; Jan.
2
Appeal 2016-001163
Application 13/133,542
13, 2009), and Jeong et al. (US 2009/0094562 Al; Apr. 9, 2009). Ans. 3-
26.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Guido, Duncan, Jeong, and Xia et al. (US 6,252,594
Bl; June 26, 2001). Ans. 26—28.
ISSUES
Independent claims E 9, and 17
Appellant’s arguments, directed to claims 1, 9 and 17 on pages 6
through 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4 through 6 of the Reply Brief, in
response to the Examiner’s rejection the independent claims present us with
the issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Guido and
Duncan teaches dragging a scrollbar from a collapsed position that hides the
integrated scrollbar options menu toward an expanded positon that displays
the integrated scrollbar options menu as recited in representative claim 1 ?
Dependent claims 4, 5, and 19
Appellant’s arguments, directed to representative claim 4 on pages 9
and 10 of the Appeal Brief and page 6 of the Reply Brief, in response to the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims present us with the issue: did the
Examiner err in finding that the combination of Guido and Duncan, teaches
collapsing the options menu into the scrollbar as recited in representative
claim 4?
1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief dated Apr. 20,
2015; the Reply Brief dated Oct. 29, 2015; and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Sep. 1, 2015.
3
Appeal 2016-001163
Application 13/133,542
Dependent claims 8 and 16
Appellant’s arguments, directed to representative claim 8 on pages 10
and 11 of the Appeal Brief and page 6 of the Reply Brief, in response to the
Examiner’s rejection these claims present us with the issue: did the
Examiner err in finding that the combination of Guido, Duncan, and Xia
teaches collapsing the options menu into the scrollbar as recited in
representative claim 8?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 16. However, we are not persuaded
of error in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9 through 15, and 17
through 21.
Independent claims E 9, and 17
Appellant’s arguments directed to these claims focus on the teachings
of Jeong, asserting the reference does not teach the limitation of dragging a
scrollbar from a collapsed position that hides the integrated scrollbar options
menu toward an expanded positon that displays the integrated scrollbar
options menu. App. Br. 6—9. In response to Appellant’s arguments the
Examiner finds that the disputed limitation is taught by the combination of
Guido and Jeong. Ans. 29-32. Specifically, the Examiner finds Guido
teaches a scrollbar with an integrated scrollbar menu and that Jeong teaches
a tag which when dragged in one direction exposes a menu screen and
dragged in the other direction hides the menu screen. Id. We have reviewed
the Examiner’s findings and the supporting evidence and concur with the
4
Appeal 2016-001163
Application 13/133,542
Examiner. We note that Guido in para. 21 teaches that right clicking on the
scrollbar brings up the scrollbar menu, we consider the use of Jeoug’s tag,
which exposes and hides a menu, to be nothing more than using known
methods to perform their known function. Thus, Appellant’s arguments
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 1 and claims 2, 6, 7, 9, through 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Dependent claims 4, 5, and 19
Appellant’s arguments directed to these claims focus on the teachings
of Jeong, asserting the reference teaches covering and uncovering menu
items and not collapsing the scroll bar options into the scroll bar. App. Br.
9—10. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response on pages 32
and 33 of the Answer. We concur with the Examiner. Further, in as much
as Appellant argues there is difference between Jeong’s display of the menu
and background image, we are not persuaded. As discussed above it is the
combination of Jeong and Guida that teaches the disputed limitation and
Guido teaches the claimed menu is accessed by interaction with the scroll
bar (right clicking on the scroll bar). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, and 19, and we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
Dependent claims 8 and 16
Appellant’s arguments directed to these claims focus on the teachings
of Xia. Appellant asserts that Xia’s tool tip texts do not meet the any of the
scrollbar options recited in claims 8 and 16 as asserted by the Examiner.
App. Br. 10. The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments, cites to
5
Appeal 2016-001163
Application 13/133,542
Xia’s Figure 8B finding that Xi teaches pop-up menus, which allow the user
to scroll a page. Answer 34. We disagree with the Examiner and concur
with Appellant’s argument that Figure 8B of Xia depicts a text box and not
options which the user can select. App. Br. 10—11. Accordingly, we are
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 16, and we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9
through 15, and 17 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 8 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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-IN-PART
6