Ex. GOOG 1012
`
`EX. GOOG 1012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`,. ~ 'Qf\0 ~f.~\
`0. l'1"'· ...
`C
`
`B XAF
`
`PATENT
`Att9rney Docket No. 33.84.0115-00
`
`IN THE UNITE.D STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In reApplication of:'
`
`Brian BEATON et al.
`
`Serial No.: 0$/985,26~
`
`AECFIVr::D
`JUN I a 19~~
`Gra,up Art Unit: 2.773 Group 2?C)o
`
`Filed: December 4, 1997
`
`Examiner;- Thomas. Nguyen
`
`For: NAVIGATION TOOL FOR
`GRAPHICAL USER.
`INTERFACE
`
`.Assistant Commissioner fqr Patents
`Washington , D.C. 2.0231
`
`Sir:
`
`.RESPONSE AFTER FINAL
`
`In response to the Offlce.Action maiied March 29, 1999, the period for reply to
`
`which extends to June 29, 1999, please find the following remarks.
`
`REMARKS
`
`In the Office Action, the Examiner re}ected .claims 1-24 under 35 U.s.C. § 103(a)'
`
`as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No~ 5,745; 116 to Pisutha-Arnond in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. ~.736,:{:182 to Berman ~taL (Berman).
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection. Pis1Jtha-Arnond is quite different
`
`from the invention recited in. independent claims 1 ahd 12. While Pjsyfha-Aroond does
`
`FINNEGAN, HtN:DERSON,
`fARAB~, GARRETT,
`'S 0 UNNll;.LcL~.
`1~00 l ST.R~ IP, H, W;
`WASH1t<( QTQ N1 DC aopp~
`ZOl•-400 • o4QOO
`
`I
`
`•
`
`.. [-
`
`Ex. GOOG 1012
`
`

`

`display a navigation tool pver a mahjpulable area, PISUtha-Arnand qoes not, for
`
`example, receive a user input to the physical viewing area corresponding to the
`
`manipulable area portion and the r.eprese.ntation of a (;antral tool, and determine if the
`user input selects the control tool, as recited in combination in independ~nt -claims 1
`
`and 12. Ratner, Pisutha-Amond receives a usetinputto a manlpuiable-data area
`
`indicating a d¢sire for a navigation tool,, displays the navigation tool to inhibit
`
`manipulation functions underlying the naviQation tool; and, accordingly, interprets each
`
`subsequent user inpt~t as activating fJ,inctlons assoCiated with the naviga~ion tool.. Note,
`
`in particular, col, 3, lines 15~54 .pf Pisutha-Arriond.
`
`lri contrast, the method and apparatus reCited in independent ciaims 1 and 12
`
`can provide user with a display ofart inaCtive control tool even when the u.ser Is
`
`manipulating the data underlying the inactive contrql tool. Indeed, eqnsistent with one
`
`embodltnent of fhe present invention,~- form qfthe control tool :can be continuously
`
`displayed, permitting a: user to sea an available control function at all times. See page
`
`8, lines 7·16 ..
`
`Berman does not rl!medy th~ deficiencies of Pisutha•Arnohd, For example; the
`
`action handles and context menus of !3emiari are similar to. the navigation to_ol of
`
`Pisutha-Arnond. Indeed, Berman prevents a determination of whether a control tool
`
`function or manipulable area portion function Is desired in response to a user input
`
`becaus.e Berman mandates that the actioh handles "always provide a place where the
`
`stylus always acts as a poi.nting device rather than a peri (that is, no digital h'lk is
`
`.
`
`·.
`
`(
`
`LAW Orlii'JeCD
`I'!NNECAN, HENDEI<~OH,
`ft.M&OW, GJ\AAm;'o
`II D~N~P. •. LL,P.
`tiJOO 1. S'T'~ c ct1 N. vt,
`W~~H N;OTO.H, CIC 2000!i
`10,01: • otOQ ~ IIIlO DC
`
`created When touching an actiO'n handle)." See col. s; lines 64-67 of s·erman. Th1.,1s,
`
`Berman fails to disclose or suggest receiving a user inputto th~ phy$ical viewing area
`
`-2-
`
`' .
`
`..
`' . -
`
`Ex. GOOG 1012
`
`

`

`corresponding to the manip!Jiable area portion ,and :the representati9n of a control tooli
`
`and determining if the user input selects the control tool, as recited in combination hi
`
`ii'ldependent claims 1 and 12,
`Therefore, Pisutha-Arnond and Berman, when takeh alone or in any reasonab.le
`
`coml:>inatlon, fail tcHender obvio.us claims 1 and· 12 ·.under 3~ u~s.c. §1 03(a), and t.he
`
`rejection should be withdrawn.
`
`Dependent clai.ms 2-11 and 13~24 are allowable for at· least the reasons stat.ed
`
`ab.ove, by virttle of their depemdence from one of the allowabl.e Independent claims;.
`
`In view 9f the foregoing remar1<s, Applicants submit that the ¢tali'ned invention is
`
`neither anticipated nor rendered obvio.us in view,of the prior art re.ferences .cited against
`
`this application in the new gro.uods of rejection presented In the final Office. Action .
`
`.Applicemts therefqre request the entry of this Response, the Examiner's. reconskleratioh
`
`ancj reexamination of the application, and the tim~lyallowan~e ofthe pending Claims.
`
`Please grant any -extensions of time required to enter thls response and charge
`
`any additional required fee$. to our depo~lt account 06-0916.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FINNEGAN, HENPSRSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT $t DUNNER, L.L.P.
`.
`.·
`· A
`
`.
`
`Dated: June 16,, 1999
`
`FII'IN£C NJ, HEI'IDEJUON,
`FNVoaow, ft;\JU\ETT,
`Iii DUN~I f'.R.LL.P.
`1 ~00 1 aTn~a, n. w.
`WI"\\H, ~ (}'TON1 tlCi z.o'OOD
`.t0.! · 411103 • cll000
`
`- 3-
`
`,..
`
`Ex. GOOG 1012
`
`