Safa, John

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2021

2019004878 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2021)

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.
14/973,606 12/17/2015 John Safa PF___5 1013
92187 7590 03/31/2021
Aram Ayrapetian
515 POWHATTAN AVE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
EXAMINER
CALLAHAN, PAUL E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2021 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):
aram@novumpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN SAFA
Appeal 2019–004878
Application 14/973,606
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE JOSEPH L. DIXON, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31–50. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Pushfor Ltd.
Appeal Br. 2 (The Appeal Brief does not have numbered pages so we
provided numbering beginning with the first page being page 1).
Appeal 2019-004878
Application 14/973,606

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 31 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:

31. A system for sharing content files comprised of a
computer server and at least one remote computing device
associated with a viewer operating a viewer module on the
remote device, said system comprised of:
a server module comprised of logic configured to receive a
content file at the server and convert the content file into a
predetermined standardized image format file that is displayable
by the viewer module, where the server module is further
comprised of a transmitting module comprised of logic
configured to transmit the converted file or a link to such file to
the remote device in response to a receiving a request from the
remote device to view the converted file;
a remote device comprised of a viewer module comprised of
logic configured to detect an input corresponding to a moving
location on a screen comprising the remote device; and render on
the display the transmitted converted file so that the regions of
the screen displaying the content that are more distant from the
moving location than a predetermined distance are rendered in
an illegible appearance while the region of the screen that is at or
less than the predetermined distance from the moving location
are rendered in a legible manner.

Appeal 2019-004878
Application 14/973,606

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rice, III. US 2002/0174010 A1 Nov. 21, 2002
Smith US 2003/0137525 A1 July 24, 2003
Caine et al. US 2010/0036967 A1 Feb. 11, 2010
Smailus US 9,214,136 B1 Dec. 15, 2015

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 31, 33–36, 38, 40, 44–46, and 50 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Caine and Smith.
2. Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Caine, Smith, and further in view of Smailus.
3. Claims 32, 37, 39, 41–43, 47, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Caine, Smith, and in further view of Rice,
III.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). Upon review of the
evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find
that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellant’s position in the
Appeal 2019-004878
Application 14/973,606

4
record. Accordingly, we reverse each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal
essentially for the reasons set forth in the record by Appellant, and add the
following for emphasis only.
Appellant’s claim 31, the sole independent claim, recites, inter alia,
the limitations: “display the transmitted converted file so that the regions of
the screen displaying the content that are more distant from the moving
location than a predetermined distance are rendered in an illegible
appearance while the region of the screen that is at or less than the
predetermined distance from the moving location are rendered in a legible
manner.”
It is the Examiner’s position that the aforementioned claim limitations
are disclosed by Smith. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner states that Smith teaches
that as the magnifier is dragged by movement across a screen display, a
large box appears within the magnifier, where the region inside the target
box is visible, and the region outside the target box, but still inside the
magnifier, is obscured by making it appear translucent. Ans. 5, Smith,
¶¶ 32–35.
Appellant disputes this interpretation of Smith. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant submits that Smith does not disclose the absurdity of a virtual
magnifier that obscures the text within the magnifier. Appellant states that
the only reference to “translucence” in Smith is at paragraph 35 which
discloses: “the region within the target box is clear, and surrounding regions
within the magnifier are modified by grey shading, modifying color or
modifying translucence. In this way no lines are required to delineate the
border of the magnifier or the target box.” Appellant states that there is no
Appeal 2019-004878
Application 14/973,606

5
mention in paragraph 35 of Smith that anything is “rendered in an illegible
appearance” as claimed by Appellant. Appellant argues that the
claim element of “illegible appearance” is therefore not met by Smith’s
teaching of “modifying translucence.” Appeal Br. 8. We are persuaded by
this line of argument and therefore reverse Rejection 1, and reverse
Rejections 2 and 3 for the same reasons (the Examiner does not rely upon
the additionally applied reference in these rejections to cure the stated
deficiencies of Smith).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
31, 33–36,
38, 40, 44–
46, 50
103 Caine, Smith 31, 33–36,
38, 40, 44–
46, 50
48 103 Caine, Smith,
Smailus
48
32, 37, 39,
41–43, 47,
49
103 Caine, Smith,
Rice, III.
32, 37, 39,
41–43, 47,
49
Overall
Outcome
31–50

REVERSED