Ex Parte Scott

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

11554213 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHERRYL LEE LORRAINE SCOTT

Appeal 2010-010289
Application 11/554,213
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W.WHITEHEAD, JR, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 12-22. Claims 2, 5, 7-9, and 11 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
facilitating the use of handheld electronic devices by enlarging various
Appeal 2010-010289
Application 11/554,213
2
visual objects in response to a determination of visual focus. See Spec. 15,
Abstract of the Disclosure.

Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method of outputting a number of visual objects on
a display of a handheld electronic device, the method
comprising:

depicting as a first output on the display:

a first visual object at an initial size disposed at a
first location on the display,

a second visual object at an initial size disposed at
a second location on the display, and

a space disposed between the first and second
visual objects;

making a determination that a focus of the handheld
electronic device is on a predetermined visual object; and

responsive to said determination, depicting as a second
output on the display:

an enlarged version of at least a portion of the first
visual object disposed at the first location and occupying
at least a portion of the space, and

at least a portion of the second visual object at the
initial size disposed at the second location,

wherein at least a portion of the first output includes a
quantity of text, the first visual object includes a first passage in
the quantity of text, and the second visual object includes a
second passage in the quantity of text.

Appeal 2010-010289
Application 11/554,213
3
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ito US 2006/0143574 A1 Jun. 29, 2006
Smith US 7,062,723 B2 Jun. 13, 2006
Nakano US 2004/0100479 A1 May 27, 2004
Huang US 5,933,804 Aug. 3, 1999

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 16, 19-21 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ito and Smith.
Ans. 6-11.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 12, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ito, Smith and Nakano. Ans. 11-13.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ito, Smith and Huang. Ans. 13-15.

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1, 20, and 21 by finding that Ito and Smith show or suggest a first visual
object at a first location and a second visual object at a second location
wherein, upon determining that a focus is on a predetermined visual object,
an enlarged version of the first visual device is disposed at the first location
and at least a portion of the second visual object is disposed at the second

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 8,
2010; the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 14, 2010; and the Reply Brief
filed May 17, 2010.
Appeal 2010-010289
Application 11/554,213
4
location, wherein both the first and second visual objects include a quantity
of text?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by finding that Ito and
Smith show or suggest a first visual object at a first location and a second
visual object at a second location wherein, upon determining that a focus is
on a predetermined visual object, an enlarged version of the first visual
device is disposed at the first location and at least a portion of the second
visual object is disposed at the second location, wherein both the first and
second visual objects include a quantity of text, because Ito only depicts the
display of a list of elements, such as icons, and the enlarged text depicted in
Smith is displayed in a separate location, and not at the original (first)
location. Appellant urges that a combination of Ito and Smith would yield a
system in which a list of textual items in which selected textual items were
reproduced in a magnified form at a separate location from the original, non-
magnified version. App. Br. 9-10.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner has failed to provide any
motivation that one skilled in the art would look to make the combination of
Ito and Smith since Ito is directed to lists of items and Smith is directed to
passages of text. Id. at 10.
The Examiner finds that Ito discloses first and second visual objects
displayed at a first and second location, wherein one object is displayed in
an enlarged manner at its original location in response to a selection of that
object. The Examiner notes that Smith is cited only for the premise that a
passage of text may also be enlarged. Ans. 15-16.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding Ito and Smith,
supra. Further, as both Ito and Smith are directed to the technology of
Appeal 2010-010289
Application 11/554,213
5
selectively enlarging portions of a display, we find nothing untoward about
the Examiner’s proposed combination of these two references. We agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 6-7, and 15-18) that the combination of Ito and
Smith teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 1, 20, and 21, including a
first visual object at a first location and a second visual object at a second
location wherein, upon determining that a focus is on a predetermined visual
object, an enlarged version of the first visual device is disposed at the first
location and at least a portion of the second visual object is disposed at the
second location, wherein both the first and second visual objects include a
quantity of text.

Consequently, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting
independent claims 1, 20, and 21 as unpatentable under § 103 over Ito and
Smith. Similarly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3, 4,
6, 10, 12-19, and 22, which were not argued separately by Appellant.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 12-22
under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 12-22 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)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2010-010289
Application 11/554,213
6
AFFIRMED

peb