Ex Parte Pavlak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2015

12603514 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/603,514 10/21/2009 Thomas Gerard Pavlak P080170 6666
115776 7590 09/11/2015
Betty E. Ungerman
2140 Lake Park Blvd., 8T
Richardson, TX 75080
EXAMINER
STEVENS, THOMAS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS GERARD PAVLAK, TIMOTHY WALLAERT,
and TIMOTHY H. THORSON
____________

Appeal 2013-007286
Application 12/603,514
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–20. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
All claims are rejected: under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Harrod (US 2010/0070093 A1; filed Sep. 15, 2009); and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Harrod in view of legal precedent or
additional prior art. Final Rej. 4–21. We REVERSE all rejections because
the Examiner fails to articulate how Harrod teaches an argued restriction of
the independent claims.
Appeal 2013-007286
Application 12/603,514

2
Each of the independent claims requires an at-issue (i.e., addressed by
Appellants’ arguments; see infra) help tab and resulting context-sensitive
help screen. More particularly, each of the independent claims recites: “a
help tab, wherein invoking the help tab advances to a help screen that
provides context sensitive help that presents at least one dialog box related
to a function of a current screen[.]”
The Examiner reads: claim 1’s help tab on Harrods’ help button 112
of Figure 6 (see also identical help button 50 of Figures 12 and 14); and
claim 1’s help screen on Harrod’s display screens of Figures 13–14. Final
Rej. 5. As is argued by Appellants, pressing the help button 112 does not
open Figures 13–14’s display screens. Reply Br. 5; Harrod ¶¶ 76–79.
Rather, pressing Harrod’s alert button 198 opens Figures 13–14’s display
screens. Id. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that invoking the help
button 112 advances to Figures 13–14’s display screens. And, in turn, the
Examiner has not shown that the help button 112 and Figures 13–14’s
display screens teach “a help tab, wherein invoking the help tab advances to
a help screen that provides context sensitive help that presents at least one
dialog box related to a function of a current screen” (independent claims).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections claims 1–20 are reversed.
REVERSED
SL