Brian Neisler et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 6, 201914693688 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/693,688 04/22/2015 Brian Neisler HD-U-027 6312 16461 7590 09/06/2019 Benjamin E. Maskell, Esq. 888 N. Quincy Street Suite 701 Arlington, VA 22203 EXAMINER SCHNIREL, ANDREW B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/06/2019 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRIAN NEISLER and MATTHEW LEIGH VROOM ____________________ Appeal 2018-009176 Application 14/693,6881 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8–13, 15, 16, and 18–20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, Henge Docks LLC is the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal 2018-009176 Application 14/693,688 2 Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim The disclosed invention relates to a method of determining the position of a cursor on a display screen. Spec. ¶ 2. When the position of a cursor is unknown to a user, the user typically performs a motion such as jiggling a mouse to identify the position of the cursor. Id. ¶¶ 2–3. The disclosed invention displays a ghost cursor at an eye-gaze location to assist in setting the position of the mouse cursor, wherein both are simultaneously displayed on the display. Id. ¶¶ 13–16. Independent claim 1 exemplifies the disclosed invention and reads as follows: 1. A method for setting the position of a cursor on a display screen, the method comprising: displaying the cursor on the display screen at a cursor location; determining an eye-gaze location on the display screen; receiving a move-intent input, the move-intent input indicated by a button on an input device; after receiving the move-intent input, displaying a ghost cursor at the eye-gaze location, wherein the ghost cursor is separate and distinct from the cursor and displayed simultaneously with the cursor while the cursor is displayed at the cursor location; after displaying the ghost cursor at the eye-gaze location, receiving a confirmation-intent input confirming a position of the ghost cursor, the confirmation-intent input indicated by the button on an input device; and upon receiving the confirmation-intent input, repositioning the cursor to the eye-gaze location. Independent claims 12 and 19 recite features that are the same as, or coextensive with, features recited in claim 1. Br. 9. Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20. Appeal 2018-009176 Application 14/693,688 3 Accordingly, claims 1–4, 6, 8–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6, 8–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103as being obvious over Stafford (US 2012/0272179 A1, published Oct. 25, 2012, filed Apr. 21, 2011) in view of Amir et al. (US 6,204,828 B1, issued Mar. 20, 2001) (hereinafter “Amir”) and Lu et al. (US 2010/0207885 A1, published Aug. 19, 2010) (hereinafter “Lu”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejection (Final Act. 2–172) in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred (Br. 6–9). Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s contentions (Ans. 15–18). For the reasons explained below, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is in error. The Examiner relies upon Stafford to teach or suggest nearly all of the limitations of claim 1, including displaying a mouse-controlled cursor, determining an eye-gaze location, receiving a move-intent input from the user’s movement of the mouse, subsequently displaying a separate and distinct ghost cursor at the eye-gaze location, receiving a confirmation-intent input that repositions the mouse cursor to the eye-gaze location. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner relies upon Amir to teach or suggest the use of a button 2 All references to the Final Action refer to the Final Action entered on January 22, 2018. Appeal 2018-009176 Application 14/693,688 4 as the confirmation-intent input. Id. at 4–5. The Examiner relies upon Lu to teach or suggest the use of two simultaneously displayed cursors. Id. at 5. Appellant first argues that the asserted references, and Stafford in particular, lack a teaching or suggestion of both a cursor and a ghost cursor that are separate and distinct. Br. 6–8. We do not find this argument persuasive. The Examiner relies upon Stafford for a ghost cursor that is based on an eye-gaze location and is separate and distinct from the cursor. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 15–17. The Examiner points to Stafford’s description of a “cursor” as a pointer or indicator that may be referred to as either a “focus area” or a “mouse cursor.” Ans. 16 (citing Stafford ¶ 30). The Examiner further points to Stafford for location 206, determined by the gaze detection system at the location at which the user fixes their gaze, that is separate and distinct from the location of the mouse cursor at position 204. Ans. 16 (citing Stafford ¶¶ 35–36). We determine that the Examiner’s position is supported by Stafford, which equates the target area of the gaze focus on the display to the “focus area” that Stafford lists as an example of a cursor. See, e.g., Stafford ¶62 (“Using the target area of the gaze focus, an application changes the way the cursor moves in order to reach the target more effectively.”). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Stafford discloses a cursor and a ghost cursor that are separate and distinct. To the extent that Appellant argues that Stafford teaches only a single cursor that is displayed, the Examiner has not relied solely on Stafford to teach or suggest this claim limitation. The Examiner states that Stafford does not teach or suggest that the ghost cursor is displayed simultaneously with the cursor while the cursor is displayed at the cursor location. Final Appeal 2018-009176 Application 14/693,688 5 Act. 4. The portions of Stafford cited by the Examiner require only that the user’s gaze area be determined by the gaze detection system. Stafford ¶ 35. Instead, the Examiner relies upon the teachings or suggestions of Lu to provide the missing teaching or suggestion of Stafford of displaying two simultaneous cursors. Final Act. 5. Indeed, Figure 2 of Lu illustrates cursors 81 and 81' displayed simultaneously. Lu, Fig. 2; ¶¶ 34, 36. To the extent that Appellant argues against the combination of Lu and Stafford, Appellant states only that “Lu relates to a mouse having two optical sensors with two cursors and does not remedy the above described deficiencies of Stafford.” Br. 9. However, this statement does not explain how the Examiner’s combined teachings of Lu and Stafford would not result in a cursor and a ghost cursor that are separate and distinct cursors that are simultaneously displayed. The Examiner has relied upon Stafford for a ghost cursor in the form of a gaze focus area that is separate and distinct from the other (e.g., mouse) cursor. Ans. 16–17. We note that Stafford further states that the display may visually indicate the gaze focus area, for example, “an area approximately centered on the POG [Point of Gaze] is magnified in the display.” Stafford ¶ 70. Appellant has not explained why the combined teachings of Lu and Stafford, as set forth by the Examiner, would not result in the claimed limitation of a ghost cursor that is “separate and distinct from the cursor and displayed simultaneously with the cursor while the cursor is displayed at the cursor location.” Claim 1. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of Stafford and Lu to teach or suggest the contested limitations. Appellant next argues that the Examiner errs in relying on Stafford to teach or suggest the limitation of “upon receiving the confirmation-intent Appeal 2018-009176 Application 14/693,688 6 input, repositioning the cursor to the eye-gaze location.” Br. 8. Appellant argues that Stafford teaches movement of the mouse cursor as a confirmation-intent input, but that this occurs after the cursor has been repositioned to the eye-gaze location. Br. 8–9. We do not find these arguments persuasive. The Examiner relies upon Stafford to teach or suggest receiving a confirmation-intent input in the form of the movement of the mouse from location 206 to location 208, as shown in Fig. 2A, and upon that input, repositioning the cursor (elements 116 and 204) to the eye-gaze location (elements 206 and 256). Final Act. 4 (citing Stafford ¶¶ 29, 35, 45). We determine that the Examiner’s position is supported by Stafford, which states, “when the systems detect[] the intent of the user, manifested by the physical action of moving the mouse, the mouse cursor jumps to position 258, which is on the POG [Point of Gaze] 256.” Stafford ¶ 45. For the abovementioned reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Because claims 2–4, 6, 8–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 stand or fall with claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of those claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation