Ex Parte Denker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

13631381 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/631,381 09/28/2012
14824 7590 04/02/2018
Moser Taboada/ SRI International
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Grit Denker
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.
SRI6252-5 4743
EXAMINER
JANSEN II, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GRIT DENKER and RUKMAN SEN ANA YAKE
Appeal2017-009953
Application 13/631,3 81
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BETH Z. SHAW, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-11, 13-21, and 23-32, which
represent all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
February 22, 2017 ("App. Br."), Reply Brief filed July 18, 2017 ("Reply
Br."), the Specification filed September 28, 2012 ("Spec."), the Examiner's
Answer mailed June 8, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Final Rejection mailed
September 22, 2016 ("Final Act.").
2 Appellants identify SRI INTERNATIONAL as the real party in interest
(App. Br. 3).
Appeal2017-009953
Application 13/631,381
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to
adapting the presentation of user interface elements based on a
contextual user model includes using passive interaction data,
such as gaze-tracking inputs or certain proximity inputs, to
determine an aspect of the user's current interaction context
(e.g., the user's current focus of attention or current hand
position). User interface elements may be changed or relocated
based on the user's current interaction context.
Spec., Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and is reproduced below:
1. One or more non-transitory machine-readable
media encoded with an adaptive presentation module to adapt
the presentation of user interface elements at a computing
device, comprising executable instructions configured to:
access a contextual user model, the contextual user model
comprising user interaction data stored over time, the user
interaction data relating to a plurality of user interactions
occurring prior to a current user interaction with the computing
device, the user interaction data relating to:
gaze-tracking inputs received at the computing device,
on-screen locations corresponding to each of the gaze-
tracking inputs,
content displayed at the on-screen locations, and
software application events related to the content,
proximity inputs received at the computing device, and
hand positions corresponding to each of the proximity
inputs;
based on at least some of the user interaction data,
determine an area of visual
focus of the current user interaction;
determine that an on-screen visual element is located
outside the area of current visual focus;
based on at least some of the prior user interaction data in
the contextual user model, determining a relevance of the
2
Appeal2017-009953
Application 13/631,381
detected on-screen visual element to at least one software
application event in the area of current visual focus; and
based on the determined relevance, change the
presentation of the detected on-screen visual element by
relocating the on-screen visual element closer to the hand
locations based on the proximity inputs and outside the area of
current visual focus.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11, 13-21, and 23-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement. Final Act. 2-5.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11, 13-21, 23, 24, and 27-32 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horvitz et al. (US
2004/0098462 Al, published May 20, 2004) (hereinafter "Horvitz") and
Shimotani et al. (US 2011/0164063 Al, published July 7, 2011) (hereinafter
"Shimotani"). Final Act. 6-33.
The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 26 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horvitz, Shimotani, and Bird et al. (US
6,323,884 Bl, issued Nov. 27, 2001) (hereinafter "Bird"). Final Act. 34.
ANALYSIS
We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding one skilled in the art
would have recognized the combination of references teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations in claims 1-11, 13-21, and 23-32 (pending claims).
However, we conclude the Examiner erred in concluding the pending claims
fail to comply with the written description requirement.
3
Appeal2017-009953
Application 13/631,381
Section 112 Rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11, 13-21,
and 23-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. The Examiner determines the following claim
elements lack support: "gaze-tracking inputs received at the computing
device, on-screen locations corresponding to each of the gaze-tracking
inputs, content displayed at the on-screen locations, software application
events related to the content, proximity inputs received at the computing
device and hand positions corresponding to each of the proximity inputs[,]"
and "based on the determined relevance, change the presentation of the
detected on-screen visual element by relocating the on-screen visual element
closer to the hand locations based on the proximity inputs and outside the
area of current visual focus." Final Act. 3. The Examiner concludes that
while support is found for each claimed aspect independently, "there appears
to be no suggestion in the specification that provides any linking language,
details suggesting that these aspects are related." Ans. 6.
We agree with Appellants that paragraph 64 of the Specification
teaches that an adaptive presentation module may adjust the presentation of
an on-screen visual element, such as a notification, based on its perceived
relevance to the user's current interaction context and without regard to the
gaze-tracking data and paragraph 31 teaches that a user's current interaction
context can include the position or movement of a user's hands. Reply Br.
4. In addition, paragraph 31 teaches that the system can through, for
example, the input acceleration module or the adaptive presentation module
(which includes the teachings of paragraph 64 ), cause an application to
respond differently or more appropriately based on the inputs taught in
4
Appeal2017-009953
Application 13/631,381
paragraph 31, which includes user interaction inputs such as information,
including but not limited to, information related to a user's hands. Id.
We therefore agree with Appellants that paragraphs 31, 50, and 64 of
the Specification support the limitations described above of claims 1-11,
13-21, and 23-32. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-
11, 13-21, and 23-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
Section 103 Rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11, 13-21,
23, 24, and 27-32 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Horvitz and Shimotani. In particular, Appellants argue the combination
of Horvitz and Shimotani does not teach
based on at least some of the prior user interaction data in the
contextual user model, determining a relevance of the detected on-
screen visual element to at least one software application event in the
area of current visual focus; and
based on the determined relevance, change the presentation of
the detected on-screen visual element by relocating the on-screen
visual element closer to the hand locations based on the proximity
inputs and outside the area of current visual focus
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14.
The Examiner finds the combination of Horvitz and Shimotani
teaches these limitations. Ans. 7-10 (citing Horvitz i-fi-158, 69, 95, 100). The
Examiner finds that Horvitz explicitly teaches that user activities are
monitored. Ans. 8. This can include defining attention models that describe
or determine the user's focus of attention or other activity. Id. In particular,
paragraph 95 of Horvitz teaches considering "the novelty of the information
5
Appeal2017-009953
Application 13/631,381
to the user" and paragraph 100 teaches monitoring "'what the user is
currently attending to and doing (based on, for example, contextual
information, including head pose and/ or gaze as tracked by gaze tracking
machinery)."' Id. at 9. This monitoring is based on user actions, which are
related to the current area of focus of a user. See Horvitz Figs. 6-9. Thus,
Horvitz is monitoring current user interaction data (with software) and
Horvitz moves the notification closer to the user's area of focus, based upon
a determined relevance to some of the user interaction data (with software)
of the user. The Examiner therefore concludes, and we agree, that Horvitz
teaches the claimed feature "based on at least some of the prior user
interaction data in the contextual user model, determining a relevance of the
detected on-screen visual element to at least one software application event
in the area of current visual focus."
Although Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that Horvitz does not
determine a relevance of the detected on-screen visual element to at least
one software application event in the area of current visual focus (Reply Br.
8), Appellants provide insufficient evidence to persuade us that the
Specification or claims limit "relevance" or "software application event" in a
way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by
Horvitz's teachings described above. See, e.g., Spec. i-f 38.
Appellants additionally argue that because Horvitz fails to teach
determining the relevance, Horvitz also fails to teach changing the
presentation of the detected on-screen visual element, based on the
determined relevance. Reply Br. 9. For the same reasons discussed above,
we are not persuaded by this argument.
6
Appeal2017-009953
Application 13/631,381
Appellants contend that the combination of Horvitz and Shimotani is
based on improper hindsight reasoning. App. Br. 20-22. We are not
persuaded by this argument because, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 10-11),
any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based
upon hindsight reasoning, but as long as it takes into account only
knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only
from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971).
"The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by
overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents." KSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
(2007). "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
Id. at 416.
The combination of Horvitz and Shimotani teaches the claimed
invention, as described in the Final Action and Answer, which we agree with
and adopt as our own. The Examiner provides a sufficient reason for
combining (i.e., use of a known technique: moving screen elements) as well
as a reason why one would seek to combine the known technique in the
manner claimed: improving the operability and user friendliness of the
device by adjusting a screen element. Final Act. 1 O; Ans. 11. Appellants
have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in
the Examiner's proposed motivation. Moreover, we are unpersuaded an
ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to apply
7
Appeal2017-009953
Application 13/631,381
Shimotani's proximity detection to another system or that such a
modification would have been uniquely challenging or beyond the skill of an
ordinarily skilled artisan.
As to Appellants other arguments regarding combinability, we are
unpersuaded because mere lawyer's arguments and conclusory statements
that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value.
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what
seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not
the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness."); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir.
1984). In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to
the contrary, the Examiner's findings are reasonable and we find no
reversible error.
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). According, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1. Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2, 4--11, 13-
21, and 23-32 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Dependent claim 3
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Horvitz fails to
teach "determin[ing] a duration of user attention to an on-screen location
corresponding to a gaze-tracking input and change the presentation of the
current user interface element based on the duration of user attention," as
recited in dependent claim 3. App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 12-15. Horvitz
teaches determining a duration of user attention because Horvitz tracks and
8
Appeal2017-009953
Application 13/631,381
determines a user's gaze, which is used to determine if a user is ignoring a
"herald" or notification. Horvitz i-fi-156, 59, 63; Ans. 12. Thus, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). According, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim
3.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-11, 13-21, and 23-
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-11, 13-21, and 23-
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-11, 13-21, and 23-
3 2 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
9