Ex Parte Chmielewski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201612362033 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/362,033 0112912009 46797 7590 02/02/2016 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Paul R. Chmielewski 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. ROC920080391US1 9323 EXAMINER CHUANG, TIJNG-MUT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2016 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): Pair_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com IBM@P ATTERSONSHERIDAN.COM rociplaw@us.ibm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL R. CHMIELEWSKI, BRIAN J. CRAGUN, and MICHAEL J. FORK Appeal2014-003012 Application 12/362,033 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, DAVID M. KOHUT, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Invention The claimed invention on appeal relates "to graphical user interfaces ( GUls ), and more specifically to displaying radial menu items near edges of a display area." (Spec. i-f 1.) Appeal2014-003012 Application 12/362,033 Representative Claim 1. A method for displaying a radial menu in a display area, compnsmg: receiving a predefined screen pointer event; in response to receiving the predefined screen pointer event, determining a first distance from a screen pointer to at least one edge of the display area; determining whether the first distance is smaller than a radius of the radial menu; and upon determining that the first distance is smaller than the radius of the radial menu, displaying the radial menu in the display area such that a center of the radial menu is at least a second distance from the edge, the second distance being greater than the radius of the radial menu and [L 1] permitting predefined gestures occurring within a predefined selection zone for selecting radial menu items, the predefined selection zone extending substantially beyond the outer edge of the radial menu. (Emphasis added regarding the contested limitation, labeled as "L l "). Rejection Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Mouilleseaux et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0327964 Al; filing date: 06/28/2008) (hereinafter "Mouilleseaux"), in view of Fleck et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0187860 Al; filing date: 04/21/2008) (hereinafter "Fleck"), and MacLaurin et al. (US PGPUB 2007 /0136690 Al; pub date: 06/14/2007) (hereinafter "Mac Laurin"). 2 Appeal2014-003012 Application 12/362,033 Grouping of Claims Based on Appellants arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Contentions The Examiner finds MacLaurin, when combined with the teachings and suggestions of Mouilleseaux and Fleck, teaches the contested limitation of: "the predefined selection zone extending substantially beyond the outer edge of the radial menu" (claim 1, emphasis added), as follows: In the same field of endeavor, MacLaurin teaches or suggests a predefined selection zone for selecting a wedge menu item (see Abstract, . . . The menu user interface involves arranging a plurality of menu items around a semicircular portion of an action area. The action area is constructed by creating a circle centered about a cursor or pointer. Thus, the menu items are arranged in an arc-like manner .... Each menu item also includes an extension or extended portion that extends from the rectangular portion of the menu item to about the center of the semicircle. The extension on each menu item creates a larger seiectabie area for each item. In addition, it aUows each item to have a distinct visual shape or appearance, both of which improve the user's viewing and selection capabilities; see Figs 1- 2 and [0026]-[0030] for this feature). (Ans. 11, reproducing Final Office Action). Appellants contend, inter alia: So while MacLaurin teaches visually extending the menu items themselves, the reference does not teach or suggest selection zones extending outside the outer edge of the radial menu that are not part of the menu item. Therefore, MacLaurin does not teach or suggest a " . . . predefined selection zone extending substantially beyond the outer edge of the radial menu," as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 16, emphasis added). 3 Appeal2014-003012 Application 12/362,033 ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence presented. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. (Ans. 2-12, 15-25.) However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below. Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err by finding the cited prior art would have collectively taught or suggested the contested L 1 limitation of: "permitting predefined gestures occurring within a predefined selection zone for selecting radial menu items, the predefined selection zone extending substantially beyond the outer edge of the radial menu," within the meaning of representative claim 1? (Emphasis added). "During prosecution ... the PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation."' In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211F.3d1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). As an initial matter of clam construction, we note claim 1 is silent regarding any language that precludes the contested ''predefined selection zone" from not being part of the (radial) menu item, as argued by Appellants. 1 Claim 1 merely requires: "the predefined selection zone extending substantially beyond the outer edge of the radial menu." 1 See App. Br. 16: "So while MacLaurin teaches visually extending the menu items themselves, the reference does not teach or suggest selection zones extending outside the outer edge of the radial menu that are not part of the menu item." (Emphasis added). 4 Appeal2014-003012 Application 12/362,033 Nor have Appellants pointed to any definition in the Specification for the recited ''predefined selection zone" that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading. (Ans. 11 ). See Appellants' Specification (i-f 73): "As shown in Figure 8, the zones 8101-s may be outside the visible bounds of the radial menu 300." (Emphasis added). 2 Thus, we conclude, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, that the plain language of claim 1 does not preclude the contested ''predefined selection zone" from overlapping some portion( s ), or even all of the redial menu item. Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). This reasoning is applicable here. Given the absence of any limiting definition3 described in the Specification (and actually argued) for the contested claim term ''predefined selection zone" (claim 1 ), on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner's broader reading of contested limitation L 1 is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. 2 See also Spec. i129: "it should be understood that the invention is not limited to specific described embodiments." 3 Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description.") 5 Appeal2014-003012 Application 12/362,033 Even if the narrow interpretation urged by Appellants (App. Br. 16; n.1 supra) was arguendo adopted by our reviewing court, we find the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. (Ans. 2-12). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that at least Mouilleseaux teaches or suggest ''permitting predefined gestures occurring within a predefined selection zone for selecting radial menu items," as recited in contested limitation LI (Claim 1, emphasis added). Mouilleseaux (i-f 63) describes Figure 4, in pertinent part, as follows: "The line 415 passes through the wedge corresponding to menu item 420, indicating that the cursor passed through that wedge, activating the menu item 420." (Emphasis added). Thus, as depicted in Mouilleseaux's Figure 4, and as described in paragraph 63, we find Mouilleseaux teaches when cursor 440 exits the wedge (i.e., radial menu Item A 420) along sweep line 415 and enters the area (i.e., selection zone) outside the wedge (Item A 420), then menu Item A is activated (i.e., selected). We additionally agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings regarding Fleck, and MacLaurin, particularly regarding the finding (Ans. 11-12) that MacLaurin (depicting Action Area 130 in Fig. 1), when combined with the teachings of Mouilleseaux, and Fleck, at least suggests the contested "predefined selection zone" as claimed (Claim 1 ). 4 As discussed above, we find Appellant's responsive arguments urging 4 · We note the test for obviousness is not what the references show individually but what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 6 Appeal2014-003012 Application 12/362,033 patentability (App. Br. 16) are not commensurate with the broader scope of contested limitation L 1, as recited in representative claim 1. For these reasons, on this record, and by the preponderance of evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1, and the remaining claims (not separately argued), which fall with claim 1. See "Grouping of Claims," supra. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Klh 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation