Ex Parte Cabrera-Cordon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2017

13179988 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2017)

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.
13/179,988 07/11/2011 Luis E. Cabrera-Cordon 332966-US-NP 1590
69316 7590 07/17/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
BHARGAVA, ANIL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUIS E. CABRERA-CORDON,
CHING MAN ESTHER GALL, and ERIK L. DE BONTE
Appeal 2017-003965
Application 13/179,9881
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BETH Z. SHAW, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8—10, 12, 13, 15, and 17—24.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003965
Application 13/179,988
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application relates to configuring menus “based at
least in part on the determined user’s orientation with respect to the
computing device.” Spec. 13.
Claims 1,10, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
with emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added.
1. A method implemented by a computing device, the
method comprising:
detecting a part of a user that contacts the computing
device based on data taken using sensors of the computing device
effective to determine a contact location of the user;
detecting at least one other part of the user that does not
contact the computing device based on other data taken using
other sensors of the computing device;
determining an orientation of the user with respect to the
computing device based at least in part on:
the contact location of the user; and
the other part of the user;
determining an order of priority to display a plurality of
items in a menu; and
displaying the items on a display device of the computing
device in a menu relative to a location of a root item,
[LI] the menu having a radial arrangement around the
root item and an orientation of the items relative to the display
device,
the location of the root item based on the contact location
of the user,
[L2] the radial arrangement and the orientation of the
items based on the orientation of the user and the order of
priority such that an item with a higher priority has a
corresponding location within the radial arrangement and
orientation of the item that is less likely to be obscured by the
2
Appeal 2017-003965
Application 13/179,988
user than a location within the radial arrangement and
orientation of a second item with a lower priority.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1—6, 8—10, 12, 13, 15, and 17—24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bilow (US 2007/0300182 Al;
Dec. 27, 2007), Yang (US 2007/0008300 Al; Jan. 11, 2007), and Park
(US 2010/0085317 Al; Apr. 8, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Park fails to meet limitation LI because:
There is nothing mentioned in Park about menu items being 25
around a root item. The idea that the items of Park cascade away
from a root item in a ray or straight line is by no means analogous
to ‘a radial arrangement around the root item,’ as recited in claim
1.
Br. 16. Regarding limitation L2, Appellants further argue that “Bilow fails
to mention anything about priority information, Yang fails to mention
anything about a user orientation, and Park fails to mention anything about
priority information being used to stop occlusion.” Id. at 19. Appellants
repeat these arguments for independent claims 10 and 15. Br. 19-27.
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) (2015). We disagree
with Appellants’ arguments. Instead, we agree with, and adopt as our own,
the Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Final Action and the Answer. We
further emphasize the following.
Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s findings.
A prima facie case of obviousness requires “some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
3
Appeal 2017-003965
Application 13/179,988
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the Examiner cites
Bilow and Yang as radially arranging menu items around a user’s contact
location. Final Act. 4, 6; Ans. 3; Bilow Fig. 1 ID; Yang Figs. 12A—B. The
Examiner relies on Bilow as determining a user’s hand orientation from the
user’s contact location and shadow. Final Act. 9; Ans. 3; accord Bilow Figs.
7AC; see also Park Figs. 6A—8. The Examiner also finds Park teaches
arranging menu items to avoid obscuring by the user’s hand and account for
their usage frequency. Final Act. 6, 9, 13; Ans. 4; accord Park || 90, 100;
Figs. 6A—8. In view of the above teachings, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to arrange menu items around a user’s contact
location and so as to lessen obscuring of higher priority items by the hand’s
present orientation. Final Act. 14; see also Ans. 4. The Examiner thus
articulated reasoning and proffered evidence in support of the rejection,
which Appellants fail to rebut. Rather, Appellants merely attack the cited
references individually. Where a rejection is based on a combination of
references, however, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants present no further arguments on dependent claims 2—6, 8,
9, 12, 13, and 17—24. Br. 19, 23, and 27. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the reasons discussed above in the
context of independent claims 1, 10, and 15.
4
Appeal 2017-003965
Application 13/179,988
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—6, 8—10, 12,
13, 15, and 17-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5