Ex Parte Ubillos

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2011

11652277 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2011)

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.
11/652,277 01/10/2007 Randall Hayes Ubillos 4860P2294C2 4264
45217 7590 06/27/2011
APPLE INC./BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUITE 300
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
PILLAI, NAMITHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RANDALL HAYES UBILLOS
____________________

Appeal 2009-012073
Application 11/652,277
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: ALLEN R MACDONALD, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012073
Application 11/652,277
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

The Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a rejection of
claims 1-24, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellant invented a method and apparatus for allowing
simultaneous zooming and panning of content in a graphical user interface
display. Specification ¶ 0001.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method for accessing a data field comprising:
[1] providing a controller including a scale controller, the
scale controller to modify a scale for controlling a
magnification for accessing data within the data field, and the
controller movable relative to the data accessed;
[2] receiving a user event to modify scale through the scale
controller;
[3] automatically adjusting the controller to maintain a center
of the controller unchanged in response to receiving the user
event; and
[4] adjusting the scale based on the receiving of the user
event to modify scale through the scale controller.

1
Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Nov. 10, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 6, 2009),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 6, 2009), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Jun. 9, 2008).
Appeal 2009-012073
Application 11/652,277
3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Alexander US 6,229,536 B1 May 8, 2001

REJECTIONS
Claim 1-24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(e) as being
anticipated by Alexander. Ans. 3.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Alexander turns on whether
Alexander describes limitation [3] of claim 1.

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUE
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Alexander
01. Alexander is directed to providing a magnified view of displayed
waveforms in a signal measurement system. Alexander 1:9-12.
02. The system implements a method for automatic magnification of
a desired portion or region of a waveform display on a graphical
user interface. This region is defined by an extent (scale) and the
position (offset) for each of two axis of a selected window
positioned over the main waveform display to encompass the
desired region to be magnified. Alexander 9:26-39.
Appeal 2009-012073
Application 11/652,277
4
03. A main view window is displayed by the graphical user interface
and the main view window waveform display is surrounded by a
number of information and control menu bars. One such toolbar
is channel status toolbar and a waveform display toolbar that
include vertical and horizontal scale controllers. Alexander 10:34-
64 and Fig. 3A.
04. A dual window arrangement is presented to a user for waveform
magnification such that the main waveform display and a
magnified waveform are displayed simultaneously. Alexander
10:9-16. Both windows include waveform display toolbars for
controlling and displaying the horizontal scale. Alexander 10:48-
67 and Fig. 3B – 3D.
05. Initially, the selection or magnification window is set to a default
scale. Alexander 12:46-49. An illustrated magnification example
shows a magnification that captures the entire vertical extent and
the center 10% of the horizontal extent of the main waveform
display. Alexander 12:49-52 and Fig. 3B. Thus, the selection
window extends horizontally for 0.5 divisions on each side of the
horizontal offset to encompass one division of the main waveform
display. Alexander 12:52-56 and Fig. 3B.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(e) as being anticipated by
Alexander
The Appellant contends that Alexander fails to describe limitation [3]
of claim 1. App. Br. 11-14 and Reply Br. 3-4. We disagree with the
Appeal 2009-012073
Application 11/652,277
5
Appellant. Limitation [3] of claim 1 requires automatically adjusting the
controller to maintain a center of the controller unchanged in response to
receiving the user event to modify scale.
Alexander describes a system for magnifying the view of waveforms.
FF 01. The system includes a main view window that displays a waveform
and a second window that displays a magnified waveform. FF 03-04. Both
waveform displays include a number of information and menu toolbars. FF
03. Although the Appellant argues that Alexander only describes centering
a separate view (App. Br. 11-12), we find that the magnified waveform
display, the main waveform display, and the surrounding toolbars together
are the entire controller. Furthermore, we find nothing in claim 1 that limits
the scope of the invention to a single view such that the claimed invention is
distinguished from Alexander.
Alexander further describes that the user selects a horizontal offset
and the selection window encompasses an equal amount on both sides of the
offset such that the selected offset is at the center of the magnification
waveform display. FF 05. That is, the main waveform display illustrates the
selection window and the magnification waveform display illustrates the
waveform such that the selected offset is centered in the magnified
waveform display. As such, Alexander describes adjusting the controller
such that the main waveform display remains unchanged by a user selection
and the magnified waveform display centers the waveform display based on
the user selected offset.
The Appellant further argues that Alexander describes selecting and
dragging a border of the selection window and is silent as to the behavior of
a non-selected boarder of the selection window. App. Br. 12-13 and Reply
Br. 3-4. However, Alexander describes the behavior of selecting an offset
Appeal 2009-012073
Application 11/652,277
6
and centering the magnified waveform display by the offset selected as
discussed supra. As such, the Appellant’s argument of a different
embodiment described by Alexander fails to distinguish the claimed
invention from the description of Alexander provided supra and therefore
this argument is not found to be persuasive.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Alexander.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Alexander is sustained.

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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ELD