Ex Parte Baliga et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2014

12114641 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2014)

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.
12/114,641 05/02/2008 Priya Baliga RSW920080111US1 3504
58139 7590 11/24/2014
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
EXAMINER
ELAHI, TOWFIQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2014 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 PRIYA BALIGA, LYDIA MAI DO,
MARY P. KUSKO, and FANG LU
____________

Appeal 2012-005397
Application 12/114,641
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–18, and 20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Claims 5, 12, and 19 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-005397
Application 12/114,641

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to computer screen security. (See
Specification 1:4–6.) Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method for enhancing computer screen security, the
method comprising:
tracking a location of a gaze of a user on a screen;
distorting locations on said screen other than said
location of said gaze of said user;
displaying information in a content area at said location
of said gaze of said user;
receiving input from said user to tune said content area to
display information; and
reconfiguring said content area to display information in
response to input received from said user;
wherein said input is received from said user via one or
more of the following methods: audio, touch, key sequences
and gestures.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Forman US 6,603,485 B2 Aug. 5, 2003
Paris US 2005/0086515 A1 Apr. 21, 2005
Chaiken US 2006/0123240 A1 June 8, 2006
Rejections
Claims 1–4, 8–11, and 15–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Forman. (See Ans. 4–10.)
Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forman and Paris. (See Ans. 10–11.)
Appeal 2012-005397
Application 12/114,641

3
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forman, Paris, and Chaiken. (See Ans. 11–12.)

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection of Claims 1–4, 8–11, and 15–18
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1
because Forman fails to disclose receiving an input from a user to tune a
content area for displaying information, where the input is received via
audio, touch, key sequences, or gestures. (See App. Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2–5.)
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar features. We disagree with
Appellants.
Forman discusses a security system, where an entire screen is masked
except for a cursor area. (See Forman col. 2, l. 66–col. 3, l. 5; see also Ans.
16.) The cursor area is a display area surrounding the cursor and represents
the user’s region of interest. (See Forman col. 3, ll. 2–5, Fig. 2; see also
Ans. 16.) Forman teaches that eye-tracking cursors may be used for cursor
control and that eye-tracking cursor implementations are advantageous when
moving the cursor area between non-contiguous regions of the screen. (See
Forman col. 3, ll. 15–32; see also Ans. 6, 13–14.) The Examiner finds
Forman’s cursor area corresponds to Appellants’ claimed content area (see
Ans. 16), and Forman’s eye-tracking cursor implementations correspond to
the claimed user input via gestures (see Ans. 5–6, 14). We agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
Appellants contend the cited portions of Forman focus on cursor
control rather than tuning the content area. (See App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2.)
Appellants acknowledge these cited portions discuss moving the cursor area,
Appeal 2012-005397
Application 12/114,641

4
but Appellants submit that moving is not tuning. (See App. Br. 5; Reply Br.
2.) We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive. The term “tune” means
“adapt; adjust.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 1303 (2d College
ed. 1982). This meaning is consistent with examples of tuning in
Appellants’ specification. (See Specification 5:9–10 (changing size of
content area), 18:7–8 (distorting entire screen), 19:4–6 (blurring area of
screen).) Appellants do not identify any language in the specification or in
claim 1 that provides further guidance on the meaning of “tuning.”
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that tuning a
content area does not encompass moving (or adjusting) Forman’s cursor area
(by changing its position). (See also Ans. 5–6, 14, 16.)
Appellants also acknowledge Forman teaches the user, using a mouse,
may select the cursor area size from a list of sizes, but contend the input for
selecting the cursor area size is not received via audio, touch, key sequences,
or gestures. (See App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2, 4; Forman col. 4, ll. 11–14.) As
the Examiner finds, however, the claimed touch feature reads on Forman’s
mouse control. (See Ans. 13–14.) Accordingly, we find Appellants’
argument unpersuasive.
We nonetheless consider Appellants’ contentions unpersuasive based
on Forman’s use of eye-tracking cursors to move the cursor area, as
discussed above. (See Forman col. 3, ll. 29–32.) Moving the cursor area
constitutes reconfiguring the cursor area by changing or rearranging its
position; and, as the Examiner finds, eye-tracking cursor implementations
are a form of user input via gestures. (See Ans. 5–6, 14.)
Appellants further contend Forman does not disclose reconfiguring
the cursor area in response to the user’s input received via audio, touch, key
Appeal 2012-005397
Application 12/114,641

5
sequences, or gestures. (See Reply Br. 4.) Appellants raise this argument
for the first time in the Reply Brief, and the argument is not in response to a
new issue brought up by the Examiner in the Answer. We therefore find this
new argument waived and need not consider the argument because it is not
timely filed. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
(informative).
In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner’s findings as to independent claim 1. Appellants do not argue
separately any features recited in dependent claims 2–4, 9–11, and 16–18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1–4, 8–11,
and 15–18.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
1. Claims 6, 13, and 20
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 because
Forman and Paris do not teach the recited steps “detecting a second user
gazing on said screen within a proximate range; and enacting a pre-
configured action based on location of gaze on said screen of said second
user and proximity of said second user to said screen.” (See App. Br. 7–9;
Reply Br. 5–8.) Claims 13 and 20 recite similar features. We disagree with
Appellants.
As discussed above, the Examiner finds Forman teaches using eye-
tracking cursors (detecting a user gazing on a screen) for cursor control
when moving the cursor area (enacting a pre-configured action based on the
location of the gaze) on the screen. (See Ans. 6, 13–14; Forman col. 3, ll.
15–32.) The Examiner further finds Paris teaches altering a monitor screen
(enacting a pre-configured action based on user proximity) upon detecting a
Appeal 2012-005397
Application 12/114,641

6
second user’s presence in the vicinity of the monitor (detecting a second user
within a proximate range). (See Ans. 11, 21; Paris Fig. 1, ¶ 11.) The
Examiner concludes the combined teachings of Forman and Paris suggest
modifying Forman’s system to protect the screen from a second user’s view
by altering the screen upon detecting the second user’s gaze, as taught by
Forman, and the second user’s presence (or proximity), as taught by Paris.
(See Ans. 11.) We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion.
Appellants contend Paris does not teach detecting a second user’s
gaze on the screen or enacting a pre-configured action based on the location
of the gaze. (See App. Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 6–8.) As discussed above,
however, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Forman and
Paris in rejecting claim 6. (See Ans. 11.) The Examiner finds Forman
teaches detecting a user’s gaze and enacting a pre-configured action based
on the gaze, while Paris teaches detecting a second user’s proximity and
enacting a pre-configured action based on the proximity. (See Ans. 6, 11,
13–14.) Appellants do not explain why the combination of these teachings
in Forman and Paris fails to teach or suggest the argued feature. Even
without Paris, it would not be beyond the scope of an ordinarily skilled
artisan to track a gaze of a second user as taught by Forman as the claims do
not require the tracking be simultaneous. Accordingly, we find Appellants’
argument unpersuasive and sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 6
and claims 13 and 20, which recite the similar features.
2. Claims 7 and 14
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 because
Forman and Chaiken do not teach the recited steps “authenticating said user
via one or more biometric technologies; and enabling eye tracking and
Appeal 2012-005397
Application 12/114,641

7
display functionality if said user is authorized.” (See App. Br. 9–12; Reply
Br. 8–11.) Claim 14 recites similar features. We disagree with Appellants.
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings in
Forman and Chaiken. (See Ans. 12, 27–28.) In particular, the Examiner
cites Forman for teaching enabling eye tracking and display functionality;
and Chaiken for teaching authenticating a user via one or more biometric
technologies. (See Ans. 12, 27–28.)
Although Appellants acknowledge these separate teachings in Forman
and Chaiken (see App. Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 9–10), Appellants contend
“[t]here is no language in the cited passages of Forman and Chaiken that
teaches enabling eye tracking and display functionality if the user is
authorized (where the user is authenticated via one or more biometric
technologies) (see App. Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 10). As discussed above,
however, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings in Forman and
Chaiken. According to the Examiner, these combined teachings suggest
modifying Forman’s method to include Chaiken’s authentication process in
order to provide additional screen security. (See Ans. 12.) We agree with
the Examiner’s findings and find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7 and 14.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 8–11, and 15–18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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).
Appeal 2012-005397
Application 12/114,641

8

AFFIRMED

msc