`
`Ex. GOOG 1112
`
`EX. GOOG 1112
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`,. ~ 'Qf\0 ~j;~\
`0. . ..,:;. . .,.
`C
`
`B XAF
`
`PATENT
`Attorney 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~
`
`AECFJ.Vr=D
`JUN I a 19~~
`Group Art Unit: 2.773 Group 2?0o
`
`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 OfflceAction mailed 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 rejected.claims 1-24 under 35 U.s.c. § 103(a)'
`a.s being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No~ 5,745,116 to Pisutha-Arnond in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. ~.736,:{:182 to Berman et al. (Berman).
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection. Pisvtha-Arnond is quite different
`
`from the invention recited in, independent claims 1 and 12. While Pjsytha-Aroond does
`
`FINNEGAN, Htl'{i>ERSON,
`fARAB~, GARRETT,
`'S 0UNNfi,.b"L~.
`1:1100 1 S'T.Rr.~P, N, W;
`WASHJN. QTQ N1 DC aoo p ~
`ZOl•-400 • o4QOO
`
`I
`
`•
`
`. ·
`
`f' .
`•
`'l'
`
`Ex. GOOG 1112
`
`

`

`display a navigation tool pver a mahjpulable area, PISUtha-Arnond qpes not, for
`
`example, receive a user input to the physical viewing area corresponding to the
`
`manipulable area porti'on and the r.eprese.ntation of a <:antral tool, and detennine if the
`
`user input selects the control tool, a$ recited in combination in independ~nt claims 1
`
`and 12. Rather, Pisutha-Amobd receives a usetinputto a manipulable-data area
`
`indice)ting a desire for a navigation tool,, displays the-navigation tool to inhibit
`
`manipulation functions underlying the navigation tool; and, accordingly, interprets each
`
`subsequent user inpt~t as activating ~nctions assoCiated with the naviga~ion tool. Note,
`
`in particular, col, 3, lines 15~54 .of Pisutha-Amopd.
`
`hi contrast, the method and apparatus recited ln independent claims 1 a net 12
`
`can provide user with a display of ~n inactive control tool even when the user is
`
`manipulating the data underlying the inactive contrql tool. Indeed, ccmsistent with one
`
`embodiment of fhE! present invention,~- form qfthe control tool :can be continuously
`
`displayed, permitting a user to see an available control function at all times. See page
`
`8, lines 7·16.
`
`Berman does not remedy th~ deficiencies of Pisutha•Arnohd. For example; the
`
`action handles and context menus of Bemiari 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 action handles "always provide a place where the
`
`stylus always acts as a pointing device rather .than a peri (that is, no digital h'lk is
`..
`created when touching an actiO'n handle)." See col. s; lines 64-67 of Berman. Thl,ls,
`
`·.
`
`.
`
`u~ crnr;:co
`ftiiNECAN, HEND~R!>OH,
`FN\IIaow, GJ\Iu<.sn;,
`II DuN'Nfl\,1.. L,'r.
`l iJOO 1 .fl'T'R c 6'1 M. W,
`W-'SH I"iUTO_N.,. tlC: ~OOO!i
`:10,:0:: "''0~ ~ IIIIOOC
`
`Berman fails to disclose or suggest receiving a user inputto th~ physical viewing area
`
`-2~
`
`, ;
`
`Ex. GOOG 1112
`
`

`

`corresponding to the manipulable area portion ,and :the representati9n of a control tooli
`
`and determining if the user input selects the control tool, as recited in combination hi
`
`ir'ldependent claims 1 al")d 12~:
`
`Therefore, Pisutha-Arnond and Berman, when taken alone or in any reasonab.le
`
`coml:>ination, fail ttHender 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
`
`•a.b.ove, by virb;Je of their dependence fi'om one of the allowable Independent claims;.
`
`In view 9f the foregoing remar1<s, Applicants submit that the ¢1ali'ned Invention is
`
`neither anticipated nor rendered obvio.us in view.of the prior art re.ferences cited against
`
`this application in thE! new grqunds of rejection presented In the. final Office. Action .
`
`. Applicemts therefqre request the entry of this Response, the Examiner's reconsideration
`
`anc:j 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, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT $t DUNNER, L.L.P.
`.
`.·
`.
`--
`.,A
`
`.
`
`OatE!d: June 16,, 1999
`
`'-"'"" oP'r•oea
`FrNNEC11\J, HENDEI<.lON,
`F/lli.II&OW, c;t.M,ETT.
`e DUN}leA. L·L. P.
`1 ~00 J anu::a, fl. w.
`W,1t..CHii! U1TQ~I1 OC: .zo'OODi
`.t0!·.<1110lll • 4000
`
`- 3-
`
`;.l
`
`(
`
`Ex. GOOG 1112
`
`