Ex Parte Schaller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12195498 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/195,498 08/21/2008
75532 7590 07/05/2016
LEE LAW, PLLC
IBM SVLIP
P.O. BOX 189
PITTSBORO, NC 27312
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rebecca Jo Schaller
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.
GB920070045US 1 8638
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, PHUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
docketing@leelawpllc.com
docketing_archive@leelawpllc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REBECCA JO SCHALLER and
JOSEPH ROBERT WINCHESTER
Appeal2015-002060
Application 12/195,498
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002060
Application 12/195,498
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
4---6, 9, 10, and 13-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to a user interface control, specifically, a
scrollbar comprising a progress indicator to indicate the ratio of available
retrieved data that can be scrolled to total data to be retrieved (see Spec.
i-fi-f l, 18-19). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A user interface control for scrolling a display of computer
program data during retrieval of the computer program data by a
computer program, the user interface control comprising:
a track;
an extendable scrollbar overlying the track; and
a thumb button overlying the extendable scrollbar and
movable within a variable length of the extendable scrollbar
along the extendable scrollbar to scroll retrieved computer
program data within a display area allocated to the computer
program; and
where a length of the track is indicative of a total amount
of the computer program data being retrieved, the variable length
of the extendable scrollbar increases in length along the length
of the track as the computer program data is retrieved to indicate
progress of the retrieval of the total amount of the computer
program data, and a length of the thumb button is fixed based
upon the total amount of the computer program data to be
retrieved and indicates a ratio of an amount of the computer
program data displayed within the display area relative to the
total amount of computer program data being retrieved.
2
Appeal2015-002060
Application 12/195,498
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Little et al.
Christie
us 6,204,846
US 2008/0165141 Al
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Mar. 20, 2001
July 10, 2008
Claims 1, 4---6, 9, 10, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Christie and Little.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Christie and Little discloses
all the limitations of claim 1, including that Christie teaches "where a length
of the track is indicative of a total amount of the computer program data
being retrieved, the variable length of the extendable scrollbar increase in
length along the length of the track as the computer program data is retrieved
to indicate progress of the retrieval of the total amount of the computer
program data" (Final Act. 3--4). Appellants contend Christie's progress bar
792 indicating "the amount of video that has been played and, thereby the
current viewing location in the video, does not equate to Appellant's claimed
'variable length of the extendable scrollbar increases in length along the
length of the track as the computer program data is retrieved to indicate
progress of the retrieval of the total amount of the computer program data"
(App. Br. 13). We agree with Appellants.
3
Appeal2015-002060
Application 12/195,498
Christie discloses "a video application 790 (such as a video playback
application) displays video playback 791 along with a progress bar 792, on
which a playback queue 793 indicates the time progress of the video
playback" (Christie i-f 136; Fig. 2 lA). "[T]he playback queue 793 can be
moved forward or backwards on the progress bar 792 to effect fast forward
and rewind of the video" (Christie i-f 137). Accordingly, "the playback
queue 793 can serve both as a progress indicator as well as a UI element for
controlling the speed and temporal location of the video playback" (id.).
We agree with Appellants that Christie's progress bar 792 does not
indicate progress of computer program data retrieval. Even if we consider
Christie's video to be "computer program data," as recited in claim 1,
Christie's progress bar 792 does not indicate the progress of video retrieval.
Rather, Christie's progress bar indicates a position-identified by the
location of playback queue 793-within a video for which all the data has
already been retrieved. The Examiner has not shown Christie discloses a
feature indicating movement of the playback queue 793 within a length that
represents less than all of the video. In contrast, claim 1 recites a thumb
button for scrolling within the length of an extendable scrollbar indicating
the retrieved computer data, where the scrollbar overlays a track indicating
the total amount of computer data to be retrieved.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 4 and 10 which
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 5, 6, 9, and 13-20 for
similar reasons. 1
1 Upon further prosecution, the Examiner may consider whether dependent
claim 13 fails to further limit independent claim 4, and should be rejected on
4
Appeal2015-002060
Application 12/195,498
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4--6, 9, 10, and 13-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--6, 9,
10, and 13-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
this basis. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (dependent claim held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph, for failing to "specify a further limitation of the subject matter"
of the claim to which it referred because it was completely outside the scope
of that claim).
5