Ex Parte Lancioni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2016

13099066 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/099,066 05/02/2011
45209 7590 05/25/2016
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
c/o CPA Global
900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
German Lancioni
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.
42P35399 1044
EXAMINER
HIGGS, STELLA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
Database_ Group@bstz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERMAN LANCIONI, MARIO L. BERTOGNA,
and PABLO R. PAS SERA
Appeal2014-005819
Application 13/099,066
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and SCOTT B.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 20.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for generating a graphical user
interface in which the layout is re-paginated based upon the properties of the
user device. See paragraphs 39 and 40 of Appellants' Specification. Claim
1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
determining, in response to execution of an application,
first device properties associated with a first device;
Appeal2014-005819
Application 13/099,066
generating a first concrete graphical user interface (CUI)
based at least on the first device properties and an abstract user
interface (AUI) of the application;
performing re-pagination of user interface elements
based on metadata extracted from the first device; and
displaying the first CUI on the first device for the
execution of the application.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 12, and 14 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US
2011/0035688; Feb. 10, 2011) and Gibbs et al. (US 2003/0236917; Dec. 25,
2003). Final Action 2-9. 1
The Examiner has rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kinoshita, Gibbs and Gilboa et al. (US
200710094609; Apr. 26, 2007). Final Action 9-11.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' argue that Kinoshita and Gibbs do not disclose or suggest
performing re-pagination based upon metadata extracted from a first device
as recited in representative claim 1. App. Br. 7-9. The Examiner provides a
comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments, finding that both
Kinoshita and Gibbs teach extracting terminal-dependent information
(metadata) from the user device to adjust the user interface. Answer 14--19.
Further, the Examiner finds Gibbs teaches device specific pagination (re-
pagination of content) based upon the device capabilities. Answer 17.
2
Appeal2014-005819
Application 13/099,066
Based upon these findings, the Examiner considers the combination of the
references teaches the limitation of re-pagination of the user interface
elements based on metadata extracted from a device. We concur with the
Examiner.
As Appellants' have not presented separate arguments regarding
claims 2 through 20, we similarly sustain the Examiner's rejections of these
claims for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through
20 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).
AFFIRivIED
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 25, 2013,
Final Office Action mailed June 19, 2013 and the Examiner's Answer
mailed Jan. 29, 2014.
3