Ex Parte Both et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2012

11502680 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TORSTEN BOTH, CHRISTIAN LINDHOLM, BERND SCHEIBE, and TORSTEN SCHULZ Appeal 2010-001673 Application 11/502,680 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a content navigation interface for displaying multiple levels of content. See Spec. 24, Abstract of the Disclosure. Appeal 2010-001673 Application 11/502,680 2 Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. Apparatus for displaying a content navigation interface for navigating content, comprising: logic for accessing a content structure, the content structure comprising: a first entry; a second entry, wherein the second entry is a sub-entry of the first entry; and a third entry, wherein the third entry is a sub-entry of the second entry; display logic for displaying together selections for accessing the first entry and the third entry, while not displaying a selection for accessing the second entry; and selection logic for determining the third entry for display based on a user characteristic. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Kimball US 2004/0034646 A1 Feb. 19, 2004 Cordray US 2007/0157220 A1 Jul. 5, 2007 (Filed Dec. 29, 2005) Appeal 2010-001673 Application 11/502,680 3 THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-18, and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Kimball. Ans. 3-8.1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Kimball and Cordray. Ans. 8-10. ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to be dispositive of the claims on appeal: Under §102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 8-11, 14- 18, and 21-25 by finding that Kimball discloses an apparatus for displaying a content navigation interface comprising: "a first entry; a second entry, wherein the second entry is a sub-entry of the first entry; and a third entry, wherein the third entry is a sub-entry of the second entry" and "display logic for displaying together selections for accessing the first entry and the third entry, while not displaying a selection for accessing the second entry", as required by claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants argue, with respect to claim 1, that Kimball fails to disclose a content navigation interface having "a first entry; a second entry, wherein the second entry is a sub-entry of the first entry; and a third entry, 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 27, 2009; the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 7, 2009; and, the Reply Brief filed August 17, 2009. Appeal 2010-001673 Application 11/502,680 4 wherein the third entry is a sub-entry of the second entry" and "display logic for displaying together selections for accessing the first entry and the third entry, while not displaying a selection for accessing the second entry". App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue that toolbar 118 of Kimball fails to disclose a selection “for accessing the first entry” and that pull-down menu 118i is not a subset of tool bar 124. App. Br. 8. Appellants place importance on the relationship between pull-down menu 118i and menu bar 124, arguing that the Examiner’s reading of “first entry” on tool bar 118, “second entry” on pull-down menu 118i, and third entry on “Kids Only” window 126 does not anticipate the claimed display of a first entry and a third entry without displaying the second entry, as tool bar 124 is displayed in association with “Kids Only” window 126, not in association with tool bar 118. Further, Appellants argue that Kimball fails to anticipate a “selection[] for accessing the first entry”, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6-14, Reply Br. 4-16. The Examiner finds that Kimball discloses a “selection[] for accessing the first entry” in its disclosure of the presentation of a tool bar (118 or 124) having multiple elements which can be selected. Ans. 4. Additionally, the Examiner finds that toolbar 118, as altered to become toolbar 124, is the “first entry” which is displayed with a “third entry” namely “Kids Only” window 126, while the elements of pull-down menu 118i are not displayed. Id. In response to Appellants’ arguments that tool bar 118 and tool bar 124 are different elements, the Examiner finds that tool bar 124 is a “morphing or rendering” of tool bar 118, where the number of elements available for selection has been truncated. Ans. 11. Appeal 2010-001673 Application 11/502,680 5 We find the Examiner’s arguments persuasive. Kimball discloses, at ¶¶[0040-0042], that toolbars 118 and 124 “share a number of common controls” and “general characteristics”. Further, in view of that description we find it beyond cavil that tool bar 124 necessarily includes one or more pull-down menus which are not displayed after an element therein is selected, in the manner described with respect to pull-down menu 118i. Consequently we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Kimball, as well as claims 2-4, 8-11, 14-18, and 21-25 which were not argued separately with particularity. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, and 27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Kimball and Cordray, which was not argued separately, is also affirmed. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-27. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27 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). AFFIRMED tkl