Ex Parte Muller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2015

11618444 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL MULLER and ANDREW L. SCHIRMER
____________

Appeal 2012-003801
Application 11/618,444
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of the evidence on
this record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants’ claims 1–5, 7, 9, 11–18, and 20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), is anticipated by Levinson (US 6,047,260; iss. Apr. 4, 2000). In this
regard, we adopt the findings and reasoning of the Examiner in regard to the
Appeal 2012-003801
Application 11/618,444

2
teachings of Levinson and their application to the above-referenced claims
found on pages 4–5 of the Answer. We also adopt the Examiner’s response
to the Appellants’ arguments, as found on pages 13–17 of the Answer.
We add, for emphasis only, that the Appellants have not presented a
definition of the term “proximity event” in their Specification. The
disclosure in paragraph 18 of “a proximity event such as a mouse over
event” provides an example of a proximity event, but does not define a
proximity event. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that when the term
is given its broadest reasonable construction, it includes events that are
temporally proximate. We note that although we do not find that the
disclosures in the applications referred to in the Brief are relevant to the
definition of a proximity event in the instant application, they likewise
merely give examples of a proximity event and do not contain a definition
thereof.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of the evidence on
this record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants’ claims 6, 8, 10, 19, and 21, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), is
unpatentable over the combination of Levinson in view of Official Notice.
In this regard, we adopt the findings and reasoning of the Examiner in regard
to teachings of the prior art and their application to the above-referenced
claims found on pages 9–11 of the Answer. We note that the Appellants
have not made specific arguments regarding this rejection, but have relied on
the arguments made in response to the rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2012-003801
Application 11/618,444

3
The decision of the Examiner 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.
§ 1.136(a)(1) (2011).

AFFIRMED

hh