10873549 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013)

Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 21, 2013

10873549 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/873,549 06/22/2004 Steven Paul Kim RSW920040075US1 (323) 6205 46320 7590 11/22/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/22/2013 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 STEVEN PAUL KIM ____________ Appeal 2013-008457 Application 10/873,549 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-008457 Application 10/873,549 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4-10, 13-21, 24-30, 33-39, 42-50, 53-59, 62-68, and 71-76, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. A method of manipulating a portlet on a portal page, the method comprising: comparing a category attribute of a first portlet and at least one other portlet; and positioning the first portlet adjacent to the at least one other portlet on the portal page and adjusting the size of the first portlet such that the first portlet is substantially aligned with the at least one other portlet based upon the category attribute of the first portlet being the same as the category attribute of the at least one other portlet. Prior Art Mann US 2004/0212640 A1 Oct. 28, 2004 Poulsen US 7,062,511 B1 Jun. 13, 2006 Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1, 4-10, 13-21, 24-30, 33-39, 42-50, 53-59, 62-68, and 71-76 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poulsen and Mann. Appeal 2013-008457 Application 10/873,549 3 ANALYSIS Appellant contends that Poulsen does not teach “positioning the first portlet adjacent to at least one other portlet, ” as recited in claim 1. In particular, Appellant contends that portlet 720 shown in Figure 7 of Poulsen is not adjacent to portlet 722. Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds that Figure 7 of Poulsen teaches positioning the first portlet 720 adjacent to at least one other portlet 721 on the portal page based upon the category attribute of the first portlet being the same as the category attribute of the other portlet (productivity tool discussed in col. 9, ll. 44-62), where the two portlets are aligned. Ans. 10-11. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding that portlet 720 is adjacent to portlet 721. Appellant contends that Poulsen does not teach adjusting the size of the portlets. Reply Br. 3. However, the Examiner relies on Mann to teach adjusting the size. Ans. 4. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding. Appellant contends that Mann does not teach positioning tiles adjacent to each other. Reply Br. 4. However, the Examiner relies on Poulsen to teach positioning tiles adjacent to each other. Ans. 3-4. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding. Appellant contends that Mann does not teach comparing a category attribute of tiles. Reply Br. 4. The Examiner finds that a new tile in Mann is positioned adjacent to an existing tile having the same attribute. Ans. 11. We agree with the Examiner. Further, the Examiner relies on Poulsen to teach positioning and aligning based on category attribute. Appeal 2013-008457 Application 10/873,549 4 Appellant contends that Mann teaches adjusting the size of a new tile and existing tiles to a default size, rather than based on the category attribute. Reply Br. 5-6. The Examiner finds that Mann teaches positioning the new tile adjacent to an existing tile of the same category, and adjusting the size of the tiles so that they are substantially aligned. Ans. 13-14. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner. We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 4-10, 13-21, 24-30, 33-39, 42-50, 53-59, 62- 68, and 71-76 which fall with claim 1. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 4-10, 13-21, 24-30, 33-39, 42-50, 53-59, 62-68, and 71-76 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poulsen and Mann 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED gvw