Ex Parte Chmielewski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

12560529 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/560,529 09/16/2009
46797 7590 08/12/2016
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.
ROC920080386US1 1537
EXAMINER
KEATON, SHERROD L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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
Appeal2015-002571
Application 12/560,529
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-18, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-002571
Application 12/560,529
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention places items in a radial menu by dynamically
determining item locations based on predefined relationships. See generally
Abstract; Spec. i-fi-15-7. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer implemented method for displaying radial
menu items in a radial menu, comprising configuring one or
more processors to perform an operation comprising:
displaying a radial menu in response to receiving a
predefined gesture;
displaying a first set of radial menu items in the radial
menu, wherein each radial menu item in the first set is
displayed at a respective predefined location in the radial menu;
determining a second set of radial menu items to be
displayed in the radial menu;
dynamically determining a location for each radial menu
item in the second set of radial menu items based on predefined
relationships between radial menu items in the first set and the
second set, wherein the predefined relationships are based on
one or more functional groups to \~1hich one or more of the
radial menu items in the first set and the second set belong,
wherein each functional group includes a plurality of radial
menu items and is associated with a corresponding type of
predefined relationship between the plurality of radial menu
items used to place the plurality of radial menu items in the
radial menu; and
displaying the second set of radial menu items at the
determined locations
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee (US 6,144,378; Nov. 7, 2000), Abrams
2
Appeal2015-002571
Application 12/560,529
(US 6,285,367 Bl; Sept. 4, 2001), Wecker (US 7,210,107 B2; Apr. 24,
2007), and Buffet (US 2009/0019397 Al; Jan. 15, 2009). Final Act. 2-8. 1
CONTENTIONS
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Lee displays a radial menu
with a first set of items responsive to receiving a predefined gesture, and
determines a second set of radial menu items to be displayed in the menu.
Final Act. 2. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Lee does not (1)
dynamically determine a location for each radial menu item in the second set
based on predefined relationships between radial menu items in the first and
second sets, and (2) display the second set of items at the determined
locations, the Examiner cites Abrams for teaching this feature. Id. at 3. The
Examiner also acknowledges that Lee does not base the predefined
relationships on one or more functional groups to which radial menu items
in the first and second set belong, but cites Wecker for teaching this feature.
Id. The Examiner also cites Buffet for teaching that each functional group
includes radial menu items and is associated with a corresponding type of
predefined relationship. Based on these collective teachings, the Examiner
concludes that claim 1 would have been obvious. Id. at 2--4.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not dynamically
determine a location for each radial menu item in the second set based on
predefined relationships between radial menu items in the first and second
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed January
30, 2014 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed June 30, 2014 ("App.
Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed October 22, 2014 ("Ans."); and (4)
the Reply Brief filed December 22, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2015-002571
Application 12/560,529
sets, where the relationships are based on one or more functional groups to
which the items in both sets belong. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 2--4.
Although Appellants acknowledge that menu items in Wecker and Buffet
are grouped together, this aspect is said to have nothing to do with the
recited predefined relationships based on functional groups that are used to
dynamically determine radial menu item locations as claimed. App. Br. 11;
Reply Br. 3. Abrams is also said to fall short in this regard, as it merely
dynamically generates related menu items for display. Reply Br. 3.
Appellants also contend that the cited prior art does not teach or
suggest that each functional group includes radial menu items and is
associated with a corresponding type of predefined relationship between the
menu items used to place them in the radial menu. App. Br. 12-13; Reply
Br. 4--5. According to Appellants, Buffet merely places two different groups
of items with some relationship to each other, namely a particular command,
but does not disclose a functional group, let alone a functional group
associated with a predefined relationship between radial menu items of the
group for placing those items as claimed. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5.
Appellants add that Wecker' s "EDIT" group, which the Examiner suggests
is a functional group, is not used to determine menu item placement, but
rather items are placed based on pointer movement and selection probability.
App. Br. 13. Appellants argue other recited limitations summarized below.
ISSUES
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Lee, Abrams,
Wecker, and Buffet collectively would have taught or suggested:
4
Appeal2015-002571
Application 12/560,529
( 1) dynamically determining radial menu item locations in the second
set of radial menu items ("the dynamic radial menu item location
determination limitation") as recited in claim 1?
(2) one of the three corresponding types of predefined relationships
recited in claim 22?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-18 and 21
We begin by noting that it is undisputed that Lee (1) displays a radial
menu with a first set of items responsive to receiving a predefined gesture,
and (2) determines a second set of radial menu items to be displayed in the
menu. Final Act. 2 (citing Lee, col. 4, 11. 21-25; Fig. 8). Rather, as noted
above, this dispute centers on the Examiner's reliance on Abrams, Wecker,
and Buffet for teaching various aspects of the dynamic radial menu item
location determination limitation.
Turning to the rejection, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on
Abrams for teaching dynamically determining a location for each radial
menu item in the second set of radial menu items based on predefined
relationships between radial menu items in both sets. Id. at 3. As shown in
Abrams' data item representation in Figure 2, node A is related to nodes B,
C, and D, node B is related to nodes E and F, etc. Abrams, col. 6, 11. 65----67.
Based on these hierarchical relationships, Abrams generates a graph
navigation window 30 reflecting these relationships as shown in Figures 2
and 3 reproduced below.
5
Appeal2015-002571
Application 12/560,529
FIG.2
FIG.3
Abrams' data item representation in Figure 2 and corresponding graph
navigation window in Figure 3
Notably, Abrams' data processing system not only resolves
relationships between data items and displays related data items as sectors,
but also dynamically generates further related data items. Abrams, col. 5, 11.
40-44. Thus, when a user selects a sector, further related data items are
displayed according to Figures 2 to 11. Id. at col. 5, 11. 44-48.
This functionality, then, at least suggests dynamically determining a
location for each radial menu item in a second set of radial menu items,
namely menu items in sectors that are adjacent to---and concentric with-a
first set of menu items in Abrams' Figure 3. This dynamic determination is
also at least partly based on predefined relationships between items in both
sets as shown, for example, in Abrams' Figure 2.
6
Appeal2015-002571
Application 12/560,529
To the extent that Appellants contend that Abrams' predefined
relationships are not based on functional groups as claimed (see App. Br. 11;
Reply Br. 3), such arguments are inapposite to the Examiner's position, for
the Examiner cites Wecker-not Abrams-for this functional group-based
aspect. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 4 (noting that Abrams dynamically places
generic radial menu items, but Wecker places functional menu items).
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Wecker,
particularly in view of the items in radial menus 334-1 and 334-2 in Figure
3C that correspond to various functions, including edit functions. That
Wecker' s functional menu items are placed based on pointer movement and
selection probability as Appellants indicate (App. Br. 11) is of no
consequence here, for the particular manner in which these menu items are
placed is not a factor in the rejection, but rather the fact that these menu
items have functional relationships and are grouped accordingly. Accord
Ans. 4.
Notably, this functional grouping aspect combined with Abrams'
dynamic placement forms the basis for the Examiner's position in this
regard. Accord Ans. 4 ("[T]he combination provides an obvious
understanding of a radial menu with dynamic placement using functional
menu item grouping." (emphasis added)). Appellants' arguments regarding
Wecker' s individual shortcomings, then, do not show nonobviousness
where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective
teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Nor do we find error in the Examiner's reliance on Buffet for at least
suggesting that each functional group includes radial menu items and is
7
Appeal2015-002571
Application 12/560,529
associated with a corresponding type of predefined relationship between the
menu items used to place the items in the radial menu. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4--
5.
As shown in Buffet's Figures 12A to 12E, an icon 26 associated with
a "snapshot" command is displayed. Buffet i-fi-f l 02---03. After the user
selects visual cue 28 in Figure 12B, icons associated with various commands
are displayed in Figure 12C including a "freehand brush" icon 32 and
another visual cue 44 indicating a relation between this icon and a second
group of objects. Id. i-fi-f l 04---06. Selecting visual cue 44 displays a second
display area 144 with a second group of objects 50, 52, 54, and 56 related to
the "freehand brush" icon 32. Id. i-fi-f 107-108. Buffet's object displays in
Figures 12C and 12D are reproduced below.
38
26
1,0'\ .,- ~. ····································1 I
40
FIG. 12C
1 ('\ .\}~.
30
122
26
40 5"' 0
FIG. 120
Buffet's object displays in Figures 12C and 12D
As shown in Buffet's Figure 12D, each object-based icon is associated
with a corresponding type of predefined relationship between the radial
8
Appeal2015-002571
Application 12/560,529
menu items used to place them in the menu as claimed. Not only is this
relationship associated with the snapshot command and related functional
groupings (e.g., functions associated with the selected "freehand brush"
object), but the relationship is also based on the items' ( 1) physical
adjacency to each other both radially and circumferentially based on these
groupings; (2) their particular spacing relative to each other; and (3) their
radial alignment with respect to the camera icon in Figure 12D. Therefore,
Appellants' arguments regarding Buffet's command-based menu item
placement (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4--5) are unavailing, for they are not
only not commensurate with the scope of the claim, they also do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's reliance on Buffet.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2-18 and 21 not argued separately with particularity.
Claim 22
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 reciting that the
corresponding type of predefined relationship is one of(I) "affinity"; (2)
"opposite"; and (3) "repelling." Our emphasis underscores that only one of
these alternatives need be taught or suggested by the prior art to satisfy the
limitation.
In any event, this limitation further narrows the recited type of
predefined relationship used to place the radial menu items in the menu in
claim 1-a relationship type for which Buffet was cited as noted above. See
Final Act. 4. For the particular types of predefined relationships recited in
claim 22, the Examiner also cites Abrams and Lee (Final Act. 7; Ans. 5
(citing Lee, Figs. 6, 8; Abrams, Figs. 7-11).
9
Appeal2015-002571
Application 12/560,529
Leaving aside Buffet's predefined relationships noted previously, we
see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Lee and Abrams for at least
suggesting the recited "affinity" and "opposite" relationships, which place
radial menu items adjacent to each other and in symmetrically opposite
locations, respectively. Final Act. 7; Ans. 5 (citing Lee, Figs. 6, 8; Abrams,
Figs. 7-11). Appellants' arguments regarding Lee's and Abrams' individual
shortcomings (App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 5---6) do not show nonobviousness
where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective
teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' contention that combining
Abrams' dynamic menu item placement with Lee would render Lee
unsuitable for its intended purpose, namely enabling users to learn fixed
symbol positions for efficient character entry. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 6-7.
To be sure, one of Lee's objectives is to allow a user to learn the positions of
different symbols and, therefore, shorten the effort required to enter any
particular characters. Lee, col. 1, 11. 63---65. But apart from unsubstantiated
assertions that the "users would become confused" (App. Br. 15) with
dynamically-rearranged symbols under the proposed combination and
would, therefore, ostensibly be unable to learn fixed symbol positions,
Appellants provide no persuasive evidence proving this assertion. Such
attorney argument has low probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Notably, Appellants' argument presupposes that the Examiner's
proposed combination completely replaces Lee's fixed menu item
arrangement with Abrams' dynamically-placed radial menu items and, as
such, ignores the possibility of dynamic rearrangement as an adjunct to fixed
10
Appeal2015-002571
Application 12/560,529
arrangement. Nevertheless, even assuming, without deciding, that the
proposed combination completely replaces Lee's fixed menu item
arrangement with dynamically-placed radial menu items as Appellants seem
to suggest, Appellants still fail to show persuasively that users in Lee would
be incapable of learning positions of different symbols that are dynamically
placed, particularly given the limited number of patterns and permutations
for such dynamic placement.
We, therefore, find the Examiner's reason to combine the teachings of
the cited references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 22.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-18, 21, and 22 under
§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18, 21, and 22 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11