Ex Parte Banay

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

11437853 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111437,853 05/18/2006
27076 7590 04/27/2016
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP - Seattle
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
Columbia Center
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100
SEATTLE, WA 98104-7043
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dan Banay
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.
474827-15/USOlP 9603
EXAMINER
MEROUAN,ABDERRAHIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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):
ipdocket-se@dorsey.com
IPDocket_SE@dorsey.foundationip.com
lash.dawn@dorsey.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAN BANA Y
Appeal2014-006419
Application 11/437,853
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-53, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. (Br.
3; Final Act. 1.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-006419
Application 11/437,853
INVENTION
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to a computer implemented
method for displaying content on a computer or computing device display
screen. (Spec. i-f 1.) Claims 1 and 39, which are representative, with
disputed limitations italicized and with bracketed annotations, read as
follows:
1. A computer implemented method for selectively
magnifying a portion of a display screen in response to a
magnification signal, the method comprising:
determining a display context;
determining a position on the display screen for a
magnified image of the display context wherein the position is
related to a selected location on the display screen;
[i] determining whether the display context contains a
first type of content or a second type of content;
[ii] determining a size or a magnification factor for the
magnified image based, at least in part, on whether the display
context was determined to contain the first type of content or
whether the display context was determined [to] contain the
second type of content; and
displaying the magnified image with the determined
position and the determined size of magnification factor
without altering the size of at least some portions of the display
screen outside the determined display context.
39. A system configured to selectively magnify at least
a portion of a display screen in response to a magnification
signal the system comprising:
a processing component;
2
Appeal2014-006419
Application 11/437,853
a display screen coupled to the processing component;
and
a data storage component coupled to the processmg
component and configured to:
identify at least a portion of a display screen to be
magnified, the identified portion having a functional property
that may be selected by selecting a specific location in the
identified portion of the display screen;
increase the size of the identified portion of the display
screen, including the specific location, to display an increased
size image portion; and
[iii] select the functional property responsive to selecting
the specific location on the increased size image portion,
[iv] wherein the functional property is interactive and the
data storage component is further configured to maintain the
functional property after increasing the size of the identified
portion.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Hertzfeld US 2001/0055020 Al
Janakiraman et al. US 2003/0068088 Al
(" J anakiraman")
Barbanson et al.
("Barbanson")
US 2003/0164861 Al
3
Dec. 27, 2001
Apr. 10, 2003
Sept. 4, 2003
Appeal2014-006419
Application 11/437,853
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hertzfeld and Barbanson. (Ans. 8.)
Claims 24--53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Janakiraman and Barbanson. (Ans. 2.)
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Barbanson teaches
disputed limitation [i] in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Barbanson teaches
disputed limitation [ii] in claim 1?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Barbanson teaches
disputed limitation [iii] in claim 39?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding that Barbanson teaches
disputed limitation [iv] in claim 39?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-23
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Barbanson
teaches disputed limitation [i] in claim 1 (i.e., "determining whether the
display context contains a first type of content or a second type of content").
(Br. 11.) Appellant argues that Barbanson merely distinguishes between
content of different sizes, rather than types of content, citing paragraph 3 7 of
Barbanson. (Id. at 11-12.) The cited passage reads: "larger images or
content are not enlarged as much as smaller images or content." (Barbanson
i-f 37.) Giving the phrase "type of content" its broadest reasonable
4
Appeal2014-006419
Application 11/437,853
interpretation, we find that distinguishing between larger content and smaller
content distinguishes a first type of content from a second type of content.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
Barbanson teaches disputed limitation [i].
Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in finding that
Barbanson teaches disputed limitation [ii] in claim 1 (i.e., "determining a
size or a magnification factor for the magnified image based, at least in part,
on whether the display context was determined to contain the first type of
content or whether the display context was determined [to] contain the
second type of content"). (Br. 12.) Given that Barbanson discloses "larger
images or content are not enlarged as much as smaller images or content,"
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the Barbanson
teaches disputed limitation [ii]. (Ans. 17; Barbanson i-f 37.) 1
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and of
claims 2-23, not separately argued. (Br. 11-14 and 18.)
Claims 24-53
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Barbanson
teaches disputed limitation [iii] in claim 39 (i.e., "select the functional
property responsive to selecting the specific location on the increased size
image portion.") (Br. 15.) Appellant argues that although Barbanson
enlarges the display of content, Barbanson does not disclose selecting a
functional property responsive to selecting a specific location on the
1 In a passage cited by the Examiner, Barbanson also discloses:
"Alternatively, pre-determined factors may be used to scale selected items or
content." (Ans. 17, Barbanson i-f 42.) This passage further supports the
Examiner's findings that Barbanson discloses both limitations [i] and [ii] in
claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-006419
Application 11/437,853
enlarged display. (Id.) The Examiner finds that Barbanson teaches the
disputed limitation by disclosing text links as hyperlinks in images that are
enlarged. (Ans. 17-18, citing Barbanson i-fi-134--37.) The Examiner finds
that a hyperlink is a functional property that is responsive to selecting a
specific location. (Id.) We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
making these findings and adopt these findings.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Barbanson
teaches disputed limitation [iv] in claim 39 (i.e., "wherein the functional
property is interactive and the data storage component is further configured
to maintain the functional property after increasing the size of the identified
portion.") Appellant presents essentially the same arguments for limitation
[iv] as they do for limitation [iii]. (Br. 16-17.) Therefore, for the reasons
expressed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
Barbanson teaches disputed limitation [iv] and adopt the Examiner's
findings regarding that limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 39 and of claims 24--38
and 40-53, not separately argued. (Br. 15-18.)
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-53 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6