Andrew James. Whalley

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 20, 2020

14417578 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2020)

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.
14/417,578 01/27/2015 Andrew James Whalley 001001.2012-IP-055837 US 9560
99701 7590 02/20/2020
Howard L. Speight
742 Central Avenue
Napa, CA 94558
EXAMINER
EL-BKAILY, AHMAD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
howard@hspeight.com
info@hspeight.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREW JAMES WHALLEY
____________

Appeal 2018-004030
Application 14/417,578
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
DAVID CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Landmark
Graphics Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004030
Application 14/417,578

2
The present invention relates generally to detecting a cursor position
and highlighting a component using a translucent heads up display (“HUD”).
See Spec., Abstract.
Claim 18 is illustrative:
18. A method comprising:
detecting positioning of a cursor over a component in a
system schematic displayed on a graphical user interface and, as a
result, highlighting the component;
detecting selection of the component and, as a result,
drawing a translucent heads up display (“HUD”) over the highlighted
component; and
detecting positioning of the cursor away from the
component and, as a result, removing the drawing of the HUD and un-
highlighting the component.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:2
Claim 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Castrucci (US 2006/0055670 A1, Mar. 16, 2006), and
Buffet (US 2009/0019397 A1, Jan. 15, 2009) in combination with various
other prior art. See Final Act. 3–18.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

2 The Examiner objects to claims 1, 13, 15, and 17 and also objects to the
Figures 3–8. See Final Act. 2. Objections to the claims and drawings are
petitionable matters under 37 C.F.R. § 181 to the Director of the USPTO.
See MPEP 706.01; the “Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to
objections and formal matters which are not properly before the Board.”
Accordingly, we will not decide the objections.

Appeal 2018-004030
Application 14/417,578

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that “Figs. 3 and 4 [of the instant application] do
not teach that ‘the term [‘]over[’] can be used to mean [‘]proximate[’].’
Without that, the Examiner’s combination of Castrucci, Buffet and Fujii
does not teach or suggest ‘drawing a translucent heads up display (‘HUD’)
over the highlighted component.’” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant further
contends that Buffet’s “[d]isplaying a ring of icons around a component is
not the same as displaying a HUD ‘over’ a component as required by
independent claim 1. Buffet’s ‘translucent radial interface’ is proximate to,
not over, the icon 26.” Id. at 17; see also id. at 18. Appellant also contends
the Examiner’s conclusion that drawing a HUD over a component is an
obvious design choice “is not supported by the facts.” Id. at 19–20.
In essence, Appellant contends that the combined teachings fail to
teach and/or suggest drawing a heads up display (“HUD”) over the
component, as set forth in each of the independent claims; and the
Examiner’s other determination, i.e., obvious to try, “is not supported by the
facts.” Reply Br. 6–7; see Ans. 5–6.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that “to one of
ordinary skill in the art it would be obvious to try an interface that directly
overlays object properties above the object. The Examiner [also] points to
Castrucci [23], which emphasizes a concern not to obscure the object when
displaying related object property as well as the semitransparent HUD taught
by Buffet [130].” Ans. 5–6.
Specifically, Castrucci discloses:
In useful embodiments of the invention, the user can access and
change property information concerning the object 56 by interacting
Appeal 2018-004030
Application 14/417,578

4
with an interactive object property region 60, which is preferably a
window.
¶ 20.
Once generated, the interactive object property region 60 is
preferably positioned proximate to the selected object 56 or
pointer 54. . . . In an alternative embodiment, the interactive
object property region 60 can be positioned elsewhere in the
canvas 52 once generated. . . . In a preferred embodiment, the
application program is cognizant of the location of other objects
on the canvas 52, and will attempt to display the interactive
object property region 60 proximate to the selected object 56
without obscuring the view of other objects when possible.
¶ 23. In other words, Castrucci teaches changing an object, e.g.,
highlighting an object, and positioning an interactive object either proximate
to the selected object or elsewhere in the canvass, preferably as long as the
interactive object does not obscure the view of other objects.
Complementing Castrucci’s teaching, Buffett discloses:
For instance, smooth animated transitions make it easier to
understand the principle. These animations may be carried out
in 2D (such as implemented in standard head-up-display
paradigms) or in 3D (for example to provide a more intuitive
feeling of the menu behaviour). Similarly, it may be possible to
show temporarily three rings or display areas, one or two being
possibly semi-transparent to improve the usability (better
understanding of the upper and lower levels) or to provide
acceleration by making it possible to directly access another
(parallel) sub-level menu without having to go back to the
parent menu[].
Buffet ¶ 130. In other words, Buffet teaches semi-transparent head-up-
display (“HUD”) paradigms (i.e., non-obscured views) that may be utilized,
making it easier to understand the upper and lower levels items. We
Appeal 2018-004030
Application 14/417,578

5
interpret Buffet’s aforementioned better understanding of the upper/lower
levels as suggesting placement of a HUD over a component.
As such, we find the combined teachings of Castrucci’s proximate
interactive object with Buffet’s semi-transparent HUD teaches or suggests
the argued limitations.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner reasoning that “[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there are only limited
number of places an object properties can be placed on a display and still be
legible to the user: directly overlaid above the object, near the object, or far
away from the object.” Ans. 5.
The Examiner has provided evidence and reasoning supporting the
finding that the possible approaches to solve the problem are “known and
finite” or that one of ordinary skill had “good reason to pursue the known
options within his or her technical grasp.” See Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v.
Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (discussing the
requirements of an “obvious to try”– type obviousness rejection) (internal
quotations and citation omitted). When there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason
to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this would
lead to an expectation of success, it is likely that product was not of
innovation but of ordinary skill. In that instance, the fact that a combination
was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. See KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); Grunenthal GMBH v.
Alkem Labs. Ltd., 919 F.3d 1333, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019). We find that the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is supported by facts and reasoning,
and thus, stands.
Appeal 2018-004030
Application 14/417,578

6
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 13, and 18. Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the
dependent claims, except as noted below. See Appeal Br. 8–24. We,
therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4–12, 14–17, 19,
and 20.
Claim 3 over Castruccci, Buffet, and
Fujii (US 2008/020440 A1, Aug. 28, 2008)
Appellant contends that Fujii’s three keys 21, 22, and 23 “are all
physical keys, not labels on a display” and “Fujii contains no hint that any of
the three keys 21, 22, or 23 is highlighted in any way when they are pressed.
As such, Fujii cannot be said to teach the ‘highlighting the component
includes highlighting the label’ element of claim 3.” Appeal Br. 21.
Although the Examiner finds that Fujii’s Figure 1 and paragraph 64
teaches buttons being selected and “giving the user a visual cue that they are
being selected” (Ans. 9), after reviewing the aforementioned cited portions
of Fujii, we are unable to find the Examiner’s proffered teachings.
For instance, Fujii’s Figure 1, and the description thereof, i.e.,
paragraphs 18–24, do not describe keys 21, 22, and 23 as being about of a
system schematic display, as required by the claims, but rather provided on
the top surface of the frame. Additionally, Fujii is silent about the keys
including any type of adjacent label with a visual cue, e.g., highlighting.
Furthermore, Fujii’s paragraph 64 fails to provide the teaching that the
Examiner proffers, namely, highlighting of “a label adjacent to and
associated with the component.” As such, we agree with Appellant that
“Fujii does not hint at highlighting the physical keys when they are pressed.”
Reply Br. 7.
Appeal 2018-004030
Application 14/417,578

7
As for the Examiner additional finding that “claim three is already
addressed in the rejection of claim 1 by Buffet [79]” (see Ans. 10), we agree
with Appellant that in the cited portion of Buffet “there is no hint that
highlighting a component in the system schematic includes highlighting a
label adjacent to and associated with the component.” Reply Br. 8. For
example, Buffet merely discloses “[a]nother solution consists in passing the
mouse (cursor) over the object AB or a dedicated portion in the display area
14 so that a visual cue 16 is displayed.” Buffet ¶ 79. We find that this
disclosure is void of any teaching regarding “a label adjacent to and
associated with the component.” Instead, Buffet is describing a relation
between an object in one group with an object in another group, not a label
for a component. See Buffet ¶ 78. Given that the Examiner is not relying on
Castrucci to cure any deficiencies regarding this feature, we do not address
Castrucci here.
In view of the above discussion, we are persuaded that the proposed
combination of references set forth by the Examiner, does not support the
obviousness rejection for claim 3. We, accordingly, do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 3.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
3 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings
of Castrucci, Buffet, and Fujii.
However, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4–20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over at least Castrucci and Buffet are
affirmed.
Appeal 2018-004030
Application 14/417,578

8

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
3 103 Castrucci, Buffet,
Fujii
3
1, 2, 4–20 103 (at least) Castrucci,
Buffet
1, 2, 4–20
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–20 3

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED IN PART