11174110 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2012)

Ex Parte Makela

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 21, 2012

11174110 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte MIKKO K. MAKELA _____________ Appeal 2009-014285 Application 11/174,110 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before, DAVID M. KOHUT, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method, computer program product, browser, device, and apparatus for storing information associated with a Appeal 2009-014285 Application 11/174,110 2 selected sub-area of an object. See Spec. 2-3. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method, comprising: displaying an object to a viewer so as to have at least one associated area; in response to the viewer selecting the displayed object, displaying the object partitioned into a plurality of sub-areas; in response to the viewer selecting one of the sub-areas, saving information related to the selection and executing at least one function associated with the selected sub-area; in response to the viewer again selecting the object, displaying the object partitioned into the plurality of sub-areas with a focus placed in accordance with the saved information. REFERENCES Logan US 4,821,029 Apr. 11, 1989 Lai US 2003/0016247 A1 Jan. 23, 2003 Kupka US 7,164,410 B2 Jan. 16, 2007 (filed July 28, 2003) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-23, 25-27, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kupka and Logan. Ans. 3-10. Claims 24 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kupka, Logan, and Lai. Ans. 10-12. Appeal 2009-014285 Application 11/174,110 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kupka and Logan teaches or suggests displaying the object partitioned into a plurality of sub-areas?1 ANALYSIS Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-33. Claim 1 requires the object to be displayed and partitioned into a plurality of sub-areas. Independent claims 9, 17, 25, 29, and 33 contain a similar limitation. Claims 2-8, 11-16, 18-24, 26-28, and 30-32 are dependent upon claims 1, 9, 17, 25, and 29 (respectively). Appellant argues that the references do not teach or suggest displaying the partitioning of an object into a plurality of sub-areas because there is no partitioning of Kupka’s field 700. Reply Br. 9. Instead, Appellant argues that the zones 103 or regions around Kupka’s field 700 are made visible as a result of selecting the field 700. Id. We agree. The Examiner finds that Kupka’s Figure 7A shows the displayed object. Ans. 12. When the displayed object is selected, a plurality of zones, i.e., sub-areas, “associated with the original display object” appears, as can be seen in Kupka’s Figure 7B. Ans. 12. However, zones associated with the object are not the same as partitioning the object itself, as required by the claims. Neither Logan nor Lai were cited to teach or suggest the partitioning limitation and we will not engage in any inquiry as to whether these additional references cure the noted deficiencies. As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-33. 1 Appellant makes additional arguments regarding claims 1-33. App. Br. 17- 24; Reply Br. 5-14. We do not reach these additional issues since this issue is dispositive of the case. Appeal 2009-014285 Application 11/174,110 4 CONCLUSION2 The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Kupka and Logan teaches or suggests displaying the object partitioned into a plurality of sub-areas. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-33 is reversed. REVERSED msc 2 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution with respect to claims 9-16 and/or 33, the Examiner’s attention is directed to In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).