Ex Parte Englefield et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2012

11202892 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PAUL JONATHAN ENGLEFIELD, MARK JUSTIN PAUL
TIBBITS, MARK ANDREW FARMER, and WENJIN XU

_____________

Appeal 2009-011285
Application 11/202,892
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011285
Application 11/202,892

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants’ Figure 2b is depicted below:

Figure 2b shows drop zones 224, 226, 228, and 230 based on the
invention’s hierarchical model.

Appellants’ claimed invention and Figure 2b are directed to a
computer implemented method for manipulating a hierarchical model by
simultaneously displaying to a user, depending on a cursor’s position (220,
222), indications of a plurality of potential drop zones. Triangles 224, 226,
228, and 230 appear as indicators of available drop zones for a target node
(1.1. Car). The direction in which each triangle points (224, 226, 228, and
230) indicates the relationship to the target node 1.1. So, for example, the
triangle pointing left indicates that the source node dropped to the left of the
Appeal 2009-011285
Application 11/202,892

3
target node, will be added to the left of the target node in the tree hierarchy.
See Spec. 7-8.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A computer implemented method for manipulating a hierarchical
model comprising a set of linked nodes, each represented by a graphic
object on a display, the method comprising the steps of:
storing a node registry including data identifying nodes in the
hierarchical model as well as the relationship between the nodes;
displaying a representation of the hierarchical model to a user;
detecting a user selection of at least one displayed node;
detecting a position of a pointer on said display;
simultaneously displaying to a user, in dependence on the
pointer position, indications of a plurality of potential drop zones of a
target node, each representing a potential target operation on the target
node;
detecting selection of one of said potential drop zones of said
target node; and
performing the target operation represented by the selected drop
zone so as to add the at least one selected node in a particular
relationship to said target node in said hierarchical model.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Arora US 5,911,145 Jun. 8, 1999
Kupka US 7,164,410 B2 Jan. 16, 2007
(filed Jul. 28, 2003)

The following rejections are before us for review:
Appeal 2009-011285
Application 11/202,892

4
1. Claims 1-12, 14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Arora.
2. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Arora in view of Kupka.

ISSUE
Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding
that Arora either alone or in combination with Kupka teaches
“simultaneously displaying to a user, in dependence on the pointer position,
indications of a plurality of potential drop zones of a target node,” as recited
in claim 1. (Emphasis added).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology
counsels against confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by
overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402
(2007). “Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common
sense . . . are neither necessary . . . nor consistent with” our case law. Id. at
421.
Appeal 2009-011285
Application 11/202,892

5
An artisan is presumed to possess both skill and common sense. See
KSR., 550 U.S., at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).

ANALYSIS
1. Analysis regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable over Arora alone.
Appellants argue that Arora does not implicitly teach simultaneous
displaying indications of a plurality of potential zones (Br. 5). The
Examiner found (Fig. 11, steps 1106, 1108, 1110, and 1112) that Arora
implicitly teaches simultaneously displaying indication of a plurality of
potential drop zones of a target node when a first target node is close to both
the side and the bottom of the target node (Ans. 17-18). Appellants explain
that nowhere does Arora discuss displaying more than one arrow or discuss
where an arrow is displayed in the event that a dragged node is equally close
to a side and a bottom of a stationary node (Br. 5). Appellants further note
that contrary to the Examiner’s assertion one skilled in the art would not
modify Arora to provide simultaneous indications of potential drop zones,
because Arora is directed to providing a single indication of where an icon
would attach (Br. 5).
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning as stated in the Answer (Ans. 14,
16-18), and we add the following primarily for emphasis. The Examiner
found and we agree that Arora teaches displaying an arrow associated with
Appeal 2009-011285
Application 11/202,892

6
the target node indicating to the user where the source node will connect, if a
loaded cursor dragging the source node is dropped at that position (see Figs.
4, 17, and 18, col. 6, l. 44-col. 7, l. 15). For example, Figure 17 shows an
embodiment wherein the source node is dragged on top, and slightly below,
the target node, thus resulting in displaying an arrow at the bottom of the
target node indicating to the user that the source node will be rearranged as a
child of the target node if dropped at this location. Similarly, Figure 18
illustrates moving the source node to a location left of the target node, and
thus displaying an arrow on the left side of the target node, indicating that if
the user drops the source node at this location then the source node will be
rearranged in the hierarchical tree as a sibling of the target node. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 16) that the arrow is not merely
an indication of where a dragged icon will attach but also functions as an
indication of possible drop zones.
We further agree with the Examiner that Arora implicitly teaches, or
at least makes it obvious to those skilled in the art to simultaneously display
indications of a plurality of drop zones of a target node (Ans. 17). For
instance, Arora’s Figure 11 shows steps performed when a user moves a
node. Referring to the flow chart of Figure 11, at steps 1106 and 1110, a
determination is made whether the source node is “close” to the side or to
the bottom of a target node respectively. If it is close to the side of the target
node, then at step 1108, the target node is highlighted and an indication is
displayed on the side of the target node. If it is close to the bottom of the
Appeal 2009-011285
Application 11/202,892

7
target node, then at step 1112, the target node is highlighted and an
indication is displayed on the bottom of the target node.
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 17) that Arora does
not mention displaying an indication either on a side or bottom of the target
node depending on which one (i.e., the side or the bottom) is “closest” to the
source node, but instead mentions displaying an arrow when a source node is
“close” to a target node. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 17) that
there is an inference, or would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art, to conceive an embodiment wherein two arrows are simultaneously
displayed, one at the side of a target node and the other at the bottom of the
target node when the source node is dragged at a position considered “close”
to both the side and the bottom of the target node. This is especially the case
since as we discussed above regarding Arora’s Figures 17 and 18, the use of
an arrow is not merely an indication of where a dragged icon will attach but
also functions as indication of possible alternative drop zones. Thus, it
would have been common sense to a skilled artisan to modify Arora to
simultaneously display more than a single arrow to facilitate identifying
possible alternative drop zones. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402.
For the above reasons, we will affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and of independent claim 17 for the same reasons. For
similar reasons as above we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 which were not separately argued.

Appeal 2009-011285
Application 11/202,892

8
2. Analysis regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable over Arora in view of Kupka.
Appellants further argue that Kupka adds nothing of relevance to
Arora with respect to simultaneously displaying multiple indications that
include a plurality of potential drop zones of a target node, as Kupka is
merely directed to providing zones around a displayed object that allow a
user to perform various operations (commands) on the object (Br. 6).
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning as stated in the Answer (Ans. 21-
22), and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 21-22) that one skilled in the art
would realize that a target node of a hierarchical tree as mentioned by Arora
corresponds to an object mentioned by Kupka. As shown in Kupka’s Figure
12B, a plurality of alternative zones (i.e., 103A-103H) are simultaneously
displayed around object 102, allowing a user to select from the alternative
zone commands (col. 25, ll. 17-23). Thus, contrary to Appellants’ argument
that Kupka adds nothing of relevance to Arora, the simultaneous display of
indications of a plurality of potential zones is explicitly taught by Kupka and
therefore, it would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to modify
Arora to simultaneously display indications of a plurality of potential zones
of a target node. This modification of Arora would allow a user to pick the
potential zone command of interest as taught by Kupka. The motivation for
such modification would have been to enable the user to immediately focus
on and identify editing functions (i.e., where to drop a source node) that can
Appeal 2009-011285
Application 11/202,892

9
be performed on the target node (i.e., modifying the relative location of the
target node based on the selected location of the source node) (see Kupka,
col. 2, ll. 27-29).
For the above reasons, we will affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and of independent claim 17 for the same reasons. For
similar reasons as above we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2-16 and 18-20 which were not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Arora either alone or in
combination with Kupka teaches “simultaneously displaying to a user, in
dependence on the pointer position, indications of a plurality of potential
drop zones of a target node,” as recited in claim 1. (Emphasis added).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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).

AFFIRMED

rwk