Ex Parte Knowles

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

12239291 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/239,291 09/26/2008
112594 7590 08/12/2016
BlackBerry Limited (CRGO Cases)
2200 University A venue East
Waterloo, ON N2K OA 7
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael KNOWLES
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.
1400-037U 3157
EXAMINER
SHREWSBURY, NATHAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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):
docketing@dimock.com
portfolioprosecution@blackberry.com
ptoboca@fggbb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL KNOWLES
Appeal2015-000243
Application 12/239,291
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KEVIN C. TROCK, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12-15, 17-23, 25, and 26, which are all
pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-000243
Application 12/239,291
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosure is directed to a "method and system for
providing readability control ... [on a portable electronic device]. The
rendering and display of a data file on the display can be switched between a
layout view and a column view." Abstract. Claims 1 and 14 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A method of rendering a data file on a portable device
display of a mobile communication device, the data file having a
plurality of elements, components and segments, and associated
formatting and layout instructions determining order, formatting
and spatial relationships of the plurality of elements, components
and segments, the method comprising:
rendering an image of the data file on the portable device
display, in either one of a layout view that causes the image to be
displayed in accordance with the formatting and layout
instructions associated with the data file, or arul1 a column view
that causes the plurality of elements, components and segments
of the data file to be modified and displayed in a substantially
continuous single column format, the single column format being
independent of the formatting and spatial relationships of the
plurality of elements, components and segments in the layout
view;
detecting actuation of a trackball of the mobile
communication device; and
in response to the detected actuation of the trackball
identifying a portion of the data file based on a position of a
cursor within the one of the layout view and the column view
during the actuation of the trackball, and toggling a display of
only the identified portion of the data file between the layout
view and the column view within the portable device display
without changing a display of remaining portions of the data file.
1 Appellant's claim listing appears to inadvertently include the deleted term
"arul." See App. Br. 16. For purposes of this Appeal, we treat the claim as
not including this deleted term. See Amendment filed June 13, 2013.
2
Appeal2015-000243
Application 12/239,291
THE EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Final Act. 2.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12-15, 23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kaasila (US 7,219,309 B2; May 15, 2007) and
Zakharia (US 2004/0012627 Al; Jan. 22, 2004). Final Act. 3-15.
Claims 4--9 and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kaasila, Zakharia, and Fundamental Java Application Design:
Behavior, Internet Archive Wayback Machine, published by Sun
Microsystems (available at
http://java.sun.com/products/ilf/ed2/booHIG.Behavior.html as of June 17,
2001) (hereinafter, "Sun"). Final Act. 15-20.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own,
except as to that which we expressly overturn or set aside in the analysis as
follows. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
A. Written Description Rejection
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1
and 14 for failing to comply with the written description requirement,
because the "specification provide[ s] clear basis for the limitation of
'without changing a display of remaining portions of the data file"' (App.
3
Appeal2015-000243
Application 12/239,291
Br. 5), as "it is plainly inherent that non-selected portions are not switched
from the layout view to the column view" (App. Br. 7). See Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the
Examiner that, in the Specification, "there is no itemized representation of
anything ... (it should be noticed that only the device screen is enumerated
as item 420)" and the Specification "is devoid of exclusive language
regarding nonselective portions (or any reference to them at all)." Ans. 3.
That is, Appellant's disclosure describes toggling a "selected portion" and/or
an "identified portion" between a layout view and a column view, but is
silent with regard to any remaining (i.e., unselected/unidentified) portions.
See Spec. i-fi-1 62, 7 4, 79. Further, we note the disclosure also does not
specify what constitutes a portion that is selected for toggling: for example,
Appellant's Figures 7a-7b indicate that, upon toggling, all components or
segments are either shown in the new view or not displayed due to rendering
issues.2 See Spec. i170.
Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in finding
independent claims 1 and 14 do not comply with the written description
requirement for the limitation "without changing a display of remaining
portions of the data file."
B. Obviousness Rejection
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1
and 14, because
2 Contrary to Appellant's assertion, the Specification and Figures do not
describe that "portions A, B, C, D, and E" are "selected." See App. Br. 6; see
also Spec. i-fi-169-70 (describing A, B, C, D, and E as "components or
segments," not "portions," and without reference to a selection).
4
Appeal2015-000243
Application 12/239,291
Kaasil[]a does not teach "toggling a display of only the identified
portion of the data file between the layout view and the column
view within the portable device display without changing a
display of remaining portions of the data file" as recited in claims
1 and 14, but merely teaches toggling between a full screen mode
and a zoomed mode of a single element.
Reply Br. 5. Further, Appellant contends that Kaasila teaches toggling
results in showing a selected portion, but "no other component is visible."
App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. During prosecution, claims
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We
find the Examiner reasonably construed the limitation-toggling a display of
only the identified portion of the data file between the layout view and the
column view within the portable device display-as required by claims 1
and 14; to be taught or suggested by the combination of Zakharia' s teaching
of presenting table and column views and Kaasila' s teaching of "re-flowing"
web page text from one display mode to another on a device. See Final Act.
4--7; Zakharia i-f 109; Kaasila Figs. 204, 205, 100:34--58.
We similarly are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
limitation "without changing a display of remaining portions of the data file"
is taught or suggested by the cited references. See Final Act. 4--5.
Appellant's disclosure explains that the claimed "data files," such as
webpages, may not always be displayed in their entirety at one time, but
rather may include "hidden sections." Spec. i-f 4; see also Spec. i-f 62 ("[t]he
data file is rendered on the portable device display ... that causes the data
file, or a page thereof, to be displayed") (emphasis added). Further, as
5
Appeal2015-000243
Application 12/239,291
discussed above with respect to the Written Description rejection, the
disclosure does not describe unselected/unidentified portions, let alone
specify the status of any such remaining portions after toggling. See Figs.
7a-7b, 9a-10b; Spec. i-fi-169-70. Thus, we find the limitation "without
changing a display of remaining portions of the data file," as recited by
claims 1 and 14, does not reasonably preclude Kaasila's teaching of
displaying certain portions of a webpage without changing/displaying
remaining portions of the webpage. See Ans. 5 (citing Kaasila Figs. 204--
205).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
limitations of independent claims 1 and 14 are taught or suggested by the
combination of Kaasila and Zakharia. We sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of these claims, and the claims dependent thereon
which are not separately argued. See App. Br. 14.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12-15, 17-23, 25, and
26 are 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).
AFFIRMED
6