Ex Parte Knowles

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 10, 2016

12239291 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/239,291 09/26/2008 112594 7590 08/12/2016 BlackBerry Limited (CRGO Cases) 2200 University A venue East Waterloo, ON N2K OA 7 CANADA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael KNOWLES 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. 1400-037U 3157 EXAMINER SHREWSBURY, NATHAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/12/2016 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): docketing@dimock.com portfolioprosecution@blackberry.com ptoboca@fggbb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL KNOWLES Appeal2015-000243 Application 12/239,291 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KEVIN C. TROCK, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12-15, 17-23, 25, and 26, which are all pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2015-000243 Application 12/239,291 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's disclosure is directed to a "method and system for providing readability control ... [on a portable electronic device]. The rendering and display of a data file on the display can be switched between a layout view and a column view." Abstract. Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference: 1. A method of rendering a data file on a portable device display of a mobile communication device, the data file having a plurality of elements, components and segments, and associated formatting and layout instructions determining order, formatting and spatial relationships of the plurality of elements, components and segments, the method comprising: rendering an image of the data file on the portable device display, in either one of a layout view that causes the image to be displayed in accordance with the formatting and layout instructions associated with the data file, or arul1 a column view that causes the plurality of elements, components and segments of the data file to be modified and displayed in a substantially continuous single column format, the single column format being independent of the formatting and spatial relationships of the plurality of elements, components and segments in the layout view; detecting actuation of a trackball of the mobile communication device; and in response to the detected actuation of the trackball identifying a portion of the data file based on a position of a cursor within the one of the layout view and the column view during the actuation of the trackball, and toggling a display of only the identified portion of the data file between the layout view and the column view within the portable device display without changing a display of remaining portions of the data file. 1 Appellant's claim listing appears to inadvertently include the deleted term "arul." See App. Br. 16. For purposes of this Appeal, we treat the claim as not including this deleted term. See Amendment filed June 13, 2013. 2 Appeal2015-000243 Application 12/239,291 THE EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2. Claims 1, 2, 10, 12-15, 23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Kaasila (US 7,219,309 B2; May 15, 2007) and Zakharia (US 2004/0012627 Al; Jan. 22, 2004). Final Act. 3-15. Claims 4--9 and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Kaasila, Zakharia, and Fundamental Java Application Design: Behavior, Internet Archive Wayback Machine, published by Sun Microsystems (available at http://java.sun.com/products/ilf/ed2/booHIG.Behavior.html as of June 17, 2001) (hereinafter, "Sun"). Final Act. 15-20. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, except as to that which we expressly overturn or set aside in the analysis as follows. We add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Written Description Rejection Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 14 for failing to comply with the written description requirement, because the "specification provide[ s] clear basis for the limitation of 'without changing a display of remaining portions of the data file"' (App. 3 Appeal2015-000243 Application 12/239,291 Br. 5), as "it is plainly inherent that non-selected portions are not switched from the layout view to the column view" (App. Br. 7). See Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that, in the Specification, "there is no itemized representation of anything ... (it should be noticed that only the device screen is enumerated as item 420)" and the Specification "is devoid of exclusive language regarding nonselective portions (or any reference to them at all)." Ans. 3. That is, Appellant's disclosure describes toggling a "selected portion" and/or an "identified portion" between a layout view and a column view, but is silent with regard to any remaining (i.e., unselected/unidentified) portions. See Spec. i-fi-1 62, 7 4, 79. Further, we note the disclosure also does not specify what constitutes a portion that is selected for toggling: for example, Appellant's Figures 7a-7b indicate that, upon toggling, all components or segments are either shown in the new view or not displayed due to rendering issues.2 See Spec. i170. Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in finding independent claims 1 and 14 do not comply with the written description requirement for the limitation "without changing a display of remaining portions of the data file." B. Obviousness Rejection Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 14, because 2 Contrary to Appellant's assertion, the Specification and Figures do not describe that "portions A, B, C, D, and E" are "selected." See App. Br. 6; see also Spec. i-fi-169-70 (describing A, B, C, D, and E as "components or segments," not "portions," and without reference to a selection). 4 Appeal2015-000243 Application 12/239,291 Kaasil[]a does not teach "toggling a display of only the identified portion of the data file between the layout view and the column view within the portable device display without changing a display of remaining portions of the data file" as recited in claims 1 and 14, but merely teaches toggling between a full screen mode and a zoomed mode of a single element. Reply Br. 5. Further, Appellant contends that Kaasila teaches toggling results in showing a selected portion, but "no other component is visible." App. Br. 13. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We find the Examiner reasonably construed the limitation-toggling a display of only the identified portion of the data file between the layout view and the column view within the portable device display-as required by claims 1 and 14; to be taught or suggested by the combination of Zakharia' s teaching of presenting table and column views and Kaasila' s teaching of "re-flowing" web page text from one display mode to another on a device. See Final Act. 4--7; Zakharia i-f 109; Kaasila Figs. 204, 205, 100:34--58. We similarly are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the limitation "without changing a display of remaining portions of the data file" is taught or suggested by the cited references. See Final Act. 4--5. Appellant's disclosure explains that the claimed "data files," such as webpages, may not always be displayed in their entirety at one time, but rather may include "hidden sections." Spec. i-f 4; see also Spec. i-f 62 ("[t]he data file is rendered on the portable device display ... that causes the data file, or a page thereof, to be displayed") (emphasis added). Further, as 5 Appeal2015-000243 Application 12/239,291 discussed above with respect to the Written Description rejection, the disclosure does not describe unselected/unidentified portions, let alone specify the status of any such remaining portions after toggling. See Figs. 7a-7b, 9a-10b; Spec. i-fi-169-70. Thus, we find the limitation "without changing a display of remaining portions of the data file," as recited by claims 1 and 14, does not reasonably preclude Kaasila's teaching of displaying certain portions of a webpage without changing/displaying remaining portions of the webpage. See Ans. 5 (citing Kaasila Figs. 204-- 205). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the limitations of independent claims 1 and 14 are taught or suggested by the combination of Kaasila and Zakharia. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of these claims, and the claims dependent thereon which are not separately argued. See App. Br. 14. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12-15, 17-23, 25, and 26 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6