Mariet, Robertus Christianus Elisabeth. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 19, 2019

29494441 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2019)

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.
29/494,441 06/20/2014 Robertus Christianus Elisabeth Mariet 12437.0099-00000 1063
120423 7590 09/19/2019
Google LLC/Finnegan
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
EXAMINER
VOORHIES, RACHEL A.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2923
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2019 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):
michelle.murray@finnegan.com
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERTUS CHRISTIANUS ELISABETH MARIET
and PATRICK HOFMANN1
____________________

Appeal 2019-001901
Application 29/494,441
Technology Center 2900
____________________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and FREDERICK C.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting the single design claim pending in this appeal. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 The briefing identifies Applicant Google Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001901
Application 29/494,441

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to a display screen for an animated user
interface. The claim on appeal is “[t]he ornamental design for a display
screen with animated graphical user interface, as shown and described.”
REJECTIONS
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the animation beginning at 34:26 in Genral Graphic’s YouTube Tutorial
“iOS 7 SDK Tutorial: Expanding Table View Cell Part 1: The Cell,” posted
November 27, 2013 (“Genral Graphic”), in view of WP Vids’ YouTube
video “Free WordPress Accordion Menu Plugins,” posted March 17, 2014
(“WP Vids”). Final Act. 2.

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Genral Graphic has design characteristics
that are “basically the same as the claimed design,” including a new cell that
expands out of a preexisting row in stages and extends upward. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner finds that Genral Graphic differs from the claimed design
because “[t]he animation beginning at 34:26 starts with eight rows,” and
“[t]here is no outline around the borders of the table or between the cells.”
Id. at 4. The Examiner finds, however, that WP Vids discloses “[l]imiting
the number of rows in a table to two, then adding a third cell between the
original two,” and “[p]lacing an outline around the borders of the table and
between the cells.” Id. According to the Examiner, Genral Graphic’s outer
box is “formed by the edge of the display screen.” Id. at 6.
According to Appellant, “[t]he claimed design includes an outer box .
. . and a first cell within the outer box, . . . the bottom line of the first cell
Appeal 2019-001901
Application 29/494,441

3
coincid[ing] with the bottom line of the outer box.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant contends, inter alia, that “Genral Graphics shows a user interface
for a mobile device consisting of 8 rows in a table” that “occupies the
entirety of a simulated mobile device screen and additional cells appear
below a selected row.” Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, “[t]he
Examiner appears to equate ‘row 7’ of Genral Graphics [to] the claimed
first cell,” but “‘row 7’ is defined independently from the outer box,” such
that the bottom of row 7 “does not coincide with the lower line of [its] outer
box.” Appeal Br. 16 (citing Final Act. 3). Appellant provides an annotated
comparison of Genral Graphics and the claimed design, which fairly
represents the Examiner’s selected screen shot of Genral Graphics’ animated
graphical user interface.

Id.
To support a holding of non-obviousness, “[t]hus there must be a
reference, a something in existence, the design characteristics of which are
Appeal 2019-001901
Application 29/494,441

4
basically the same as the claimed design.” In re Rosen, 673 F2d 388, 391
(CCPA 1982).
Appellant’s claim can be properly construed as a display screen with
an animated graphical user interface defined by an outer rectangular box
with the bottom and top walls of the outer box appearing to have slightly
greater length than the side walls of the box (creating a square to very
slightly landscape orientation impression), and a line running parallel to the
bottom wall of the box to define an expandable cell between the line and the
bottom wall of the box. The line is present, and retains the same spacing
from the bottom wall, before and after expansion,
We agree with the Examiner that Genral Graphic’s outer box is
“formed by the edge of the display screen.” Final Act. 6. So defining
Genral Graphic’s outer box, Genral Graphic discloses as a display screen
with an animated graphical user interface defined by an outer rectangular
box with the bottom and top walls of the outer box appearing to have visibly
differing length than the side walls of the box, creating a portrait orientation
impression. A line runs parallel to the bottom wall of the box only after
expansion of a cell that is not defined prior to expansion. After expansion,
Genral Graphic’s cell is not defined by the bottom of its outer box. Thus, at
no point does Genral Graphics’ user interface include a cell at the bottom of
the outer box that has a bottom defined by a bottom wall of the box.
Given these visual differences, we disagree with the Examiner’s
finding that Genral Graphic has design characteristics that are “basically the
same as the claimed design” (Final Act. 2). Considering Appellant’s
annotated side-by-side comparison of the designs, and the differences
between Appellant’s claimed design and Genral Graphic’s design that we
Appeal 2019-001901
Application 29/494,441

5
enumerate above, Genral Graphic does not support a holding of obviousness,
because it is not “a something in existence, the design characteristics of
which are basically the same as the claimed design.” In re Rosen, 673 F2d
388, 391 (CCPA 1982).

DECISION
We REVERSE the obviousness rejection of the claim.

REVERSED