Ex Parte Minsky et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201612255087 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/255,087 10/21/2008 24739 7590 05/18/2016 CENTRAL COAST PATENT AGENCY, INC 3 HANGAR WAY SUITED WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Claudia Juliana Minsky 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. 3100.02 2714 EXAMINER AMINI, JAVID A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2016 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): officeactions@CENTRALCOASTPATENT.COM plambuth@centralcoastpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CLAUDIA WLIANA MINSKY, OLIVER STEELE, and MARGARET D.R. MINSKY Appeal2014-008492 Application 12/255,087 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7. Claims 2-5 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2014-008492 Application 12/255,087 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application concerns "Web-based presentation of and interaction with an interactive store, including catalog and shopping cart utilities enabled through Web services." Spec. 1: 15-17. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A computerized server connected to the Internet providing a method for sizing and orientating images placed on a background image of an electronic shopping cart to present a collage of images, comprising the steps: (a) providing by the server, an initial background two dimensional image in an interactive two-dimensional shopping cart display controlled by a general-purpose computer connected to the server; (b) adding geometric elements by a user manipulating the general purpose computer to the background image, the geometric elements added providing indication of perspective depth to a viewer of the background image; ( c) selecting a first product image from a database connected to the server, to be overlain onto the background image at a specific position in the display; ( d) providing an image selection function executable by the general-purpose computer, the image selection function enabled to select a second product image from the database to overlay on the background image, the second product image including the product in the first product image, the selection according to the position of placement of the first product image in the interactive two-dimensional display; ( e) placing the second product image in the interactive two-dimensional display at the specific position in the display, wherein the function selects the second product image and places it over the background image according to the position of placement, which provides to a viewer indication of perspective or orientation for the display. 2 Appeal2014-008492 Application 12/255,087 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Adams (US 7,834,883 B2; Nov. 16, 2010). Claims 1, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Li (US 2002/0113791 Al; Aug. 22, 2002). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence presented in light of Appellants' arguments. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner failed to establish that Adams anticipates or Li renders obvious claim l's steps (d) and (e). See App. Br. 7-8, 11-12. The Examiner cited and quoted various parts of Adams and Li without adequately explaining why these citations and quotations disclose or suggest all the elements recited in steps (d) and (e). See Final Act. 2-9; Ans. 7-10. In particular, the Examiner failed to adequately explain why the selected citations and quotations disclose "the selection according to the position of placement of the first product image" and "placing the second product image in the interactive two-dimensional at the specific position in the display" elements respectively recited in steps ( d) and ( e ). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claim 1 or claims 6 and 7, which depend from claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 6, and 7. 3 Appeal2014-008492 Application 12/255,087 REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation