Ex Parte Hunleth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2013

11893512 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte FRANK A. HUNLETH and DANIEL S. SIMPKINS
__________

Appeal 2011-011388
Application 11/893,512
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
for handling a cursor on a user interface and computer readable medium.
The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Hillcrest
Laboratories, Inc. (See App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2011-011388
Application 11/893,512

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“The present invention is directed to user interfaces and more
particularly, to a method of navigation and interaction with a user interface.
Such interaction and navigation involve operating an input device such as a
mouse, a trackball or a three-dimensional (hereinafter ‘3D’) pointing remote
device” (Spec. 1 ¶ 002).
The Claims
Claims 1-18 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as
follows:
1. A computer readable medium containing executable
instructions which, when executed in a processing system,
cause the system to perform a method comprising:
moving a cursor from a first display point on a user
interface to a second display point on said user interface;
receiving a selection input associated with said second
display point after moving the cursor from the first display
point to the second display point on the user interface;
providing a detailed view of the second display point
and centering the user interface around the second display
point after receiving the selection input; and
maintaining a position of the cursor on the second
display point.

The issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kaneko2 and Allard3 (Ans. 4-7).

2 Kaneko et al., US 5,283,562, issued Feb. 1, 1994.
3 Allard et al., US 5,615,384, issued Mar. 25, 1997.
Appeal 2011-011388
Application 11/893,512

3
B. The Examiner rejected claims 3-5 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Kaneko, Allard, and Grossman4 (Ans. 7-10).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kaneko, Allard, and Gannon5 (Ans. 10-12).
D. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kaneko, Allard, and Kelts6 (Ans. 12-13).
E. The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kaneko, Allard, and Roy7 (Ans. 13-14).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kaneko and Allard
The Examiner finds that Kaneko teaches a computerized method for
[M]oving a cursor from a first display point on a user
interface to a second display point on said user interface
(e.g. four cursor keys which are used for movement or the
like of the display position of the cursor frame C, which is
displayed on the screen together with the map

(Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that Kaneko teaches
[R]eceiving a selection input associated with said
second display point after moving the cursor from the first
display point to the second display point on the user
interface (e.g. an enlarged display command key to instruct
an enlarged display of one divided area, as discussed in col.

4 Grossman, P., US 7,446,783 B2, issued Nov. 4, 2008.
5 Gannon, A., US 2005/0041044 A1, published Feb. 24, 2005.
6 Kelts, B., US 2001/0030667 A1, published Oct. 18, 2001.
7 Roy et al., US 2002/0039108 A1, published Apr. 4, 2002.
Appeal 2011-011388
Application 11/893,512

4
3, lines 59-60, and the enlarged display command by the
enlarged display command key, as discussed in col. 4, lines
55-59)

(id.).
The Examiner finds that Kaneko does not explicitly show “that the
detailed view of the second display point causes the user interface to be
centered around the second display point” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that
“Allard teaches receiving a selection of a display point on a user interface
(e.g. until the finger is removed from contact with the touchscreen display.
In this manner, the user is able to select the specific area desired to be
magnified” (id.).
The Examiner finds it obvious to “combine the teachings of Kaneko
of using a cursor to select a detailed view of a selected point in a user
interface with the teachings of Allard of selecting a display point on a user
interface and panning and zooming onto that display point now centered in
the user interface” (id.).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Kaneko and
Allard render claim 1 obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Kaneko teaches “RAM (random access memory) 54 into/from
which information which is necessary to execute the program, the additional
information in the map data which was read out of the CD-ROM decoder 51,
and the like are written and read out” (Kaneko, col. 3, ll. 48-53).
2. Kaneko teaches “four cursor keys 31 which are used for
movement or the like of the display position of the cursor frame C which is
Appeal 2011-011388
Application 11/893,512

5
displayed on the screen together with the map; an enlarged display command
key 32 to instruct an enlarged display of one divided area” (Kaneko, col. 3,
ll. 56-60).
3. Kaneko teaches that
[W]here the cursor frame C is displayed in a specific area
(one of a plurality of divided areas) on the parent screen as
shown in FIG. 6A by a key entry through the cursor key 31
and the special area designated by the cursor frame C was
displayed in an enlarged manner as shown in FIG. 6B by the
enlarged display command by the enlarged display
command key 32

(Kaneko, col. 4, ll. 52-59).
4. Figure 6 of Kaneko is reproduced below:

“FIGS. 6A to 6C are diagrams showing display positions of a cursor frame C
when a wide area process is performed” (Kaneko, col. 2, ll. 57-59).
5. Allard teaches that the “zoom function is initiated or started
when the user selects the Zoom tool 146 at the bottom of screen 138”
(Allard, col. 6, ll. 41-42).
Appeal 2011-011388
Application 11/893,512

6
6. Allard teaches that
Initially, a decision 152 is made as to whether or not, the
touchscreen is being touched. If not, a loop is made until the
user touches the screen at a touch point, whereupon a
rectangular highlighted box 168 is drawn with the touch
point being within the borders. Box 168 delineates the area
of viewing screen 142, which is to be zoomed or magnified.
. . . Next, a decision is made at 156 whether or not the touch
point has been released . . . whereupon step 158 displays the
portion of the image within box 168 to fill the viewing area
with an enlarged image 170 having the same aspect ratio.

(Allard, col. 6, ll. 44-59.)
7. Allard teaches that if the touch point has changed, “step 164
moves the highlighted box to a new position around the new touch point. . . .
[T]he user moves the touch point, until the finger is removed from contact
with the touchscreen display. In this manner, the user is able to select the
specific area desired to be magnified” (Allard, col. 6, l. 65 to col. 7, l. 3).
8. Allard teaches that “[i]f the user touches the center of the view
area, the box 168 is centered on the point of touch . . . . Upon removal of the
finger, the view area is filled with a magnified image 170” (Allard, col. 7, ll.
7-15).
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417.
Appeal 2011-011388
Application 11/893,512

7
Analysis
Kaneko teaches a computer readable medium (FF 1) where cursor
keys “are used for movement . . . of the display position of the cursor frame”
(Kaneko, col. 3, ll. 56-58; FF 2). Kaneko teaches that “where the cursor
frame C is displayed in a specific area . . . the special area designated by the
cursor frame C was displayed in an enlarged manner [by selecting the]
enlarged display command key 32” (Kaneko, col. 4, ll. 52-59; FF 3).
Kaneko teaches a detailed view of the selected area as shown in the zoomed
image in figure 6B with the cursor frame maintained on the selected area (FF
4).
Allard teaches a method where “the user touches the screen at a touch
point, whereupon a rectangular highlighted box 168 is drawn . . . if the touch
point has changed . . . step 164 moves the highlighted box to a new position”
(Allard, col. 6, ll. 46-66; FF 6). Allard teaches that when the user’s finger is
removed from touching the display, “step 158 displays the portion of the
image within box 168 to fill the viewing area with an enlarged image 170”
(Allard, col. 6, ll. 55-58; FF 6-7). Allard teaches that “[i]f the user touches
the center of the view area, the box 168 is centered on the point of touch . . .
. Upon removal of the finger, the view area is filled with a magnified image
170” (Allard, col. 7, ll. 7-15; FF 8).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we
agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to an ordinary
artisan to modify Kaneko’s cursor control of a graphical user interface with
Allard’s teaching to center a user image (FF 8) upon movement of a “cursor”
such as box 168 with a selection input resulting in a zoom either with
Appeal 2011-011388
Application 11/893,512

8
enlarge key 32 (FF 3) or by removal of the finger from the touchscreen (FF
5-8) since “indicating a display point with a cursor to obtain a detailed view
of that display point, as taught by Kaneko, would allow a user to control
Allard’s interface with peripherals such as a mouse, keyboard, etc. instead of
just a touchscreen” (Ans. 6). Such a combination is merely a “predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550
U.S. at 417.
Appellants contend that “the selection input of Kaneko is associated
with the first display area and not the second display point as described in
Appellants’ claim 1 combination” (App. Br. 8). Appellants contend that
“the claim 1 combination maintains the cursor on the second display point,
i.e., the point at which the cursor is located when the selection input is
received, whereas Kaneko moves the cursor box to a different location at
that time” (id.).
We are not persuaded for two reasons. First, Kaneko teaches
movement of the cursor to a specific area (FF 2) which is only enlarged
when the enlarged display command key 32 is depressed (FF 3) as shown in
figure 6, where panel A shows a cursor at a specific location, which is then
enlarged (and the cursor appears to have been centered in the enlarged
frame) in panel B, and a return to the non-enlarged frame is shown in panel
C.
Second, Allard clearly teaches movement of the box 168, which is
reasonably understood as the “cursor,” from a first display point to a second
display point, where the enlargement occurs upon the selection event of
release of the finger from the touch screen and the enlarged image is
Appeal 2011-011388
Application 11/893,512

9
associated with the second display point from which the finger was removed
(FF 5-8). The combination of Allard and Kaneko therefore would have
suggested that the enlargement could be performed at the second display
point (FF 6-8). Consequently Appellants fail to properly address the
combined teachings of Allard and Kaneko. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.”)
Appellants contend that “Kaneko does not teach the first and second
display points” (App. Br. 9). Appellants contend that Kaneko “uses a cursor
frame to move from one pre-defined map square to another predefined map
square” (id.). Appellants contend that the “claim 1 combination maintains
the cursor on the second display point, i.e., the point at which the cursor is
located when the selection input is received, whereas Kaneko moves the
cursor box to a different location at that time” (id.).
We are not persuaded. Appellants’ Specification does not impose any
limitation on the type of cursor which may be used to satisfy claim 1. The
ordinary meaning of the term “cursor” is “a movable, sometimes blinking,
symbol that indicates the position on a CRT or other type of display where
the next character entered from the keyboard will appear, or where user
action is needed, as in the correction of an erroneous character already
Appeal 2011-011388
Application 11/893,512

10
displayed.”8 The term “cursor” does not reasonably exclude the cursor of
Kaneko, whether Kaneko moves between predefined map frames as argued
by Appellants (App. Br. 9) or along different touch points on a touchscreen
as taught by Allard (FF 5-8). In either Kaneko or Allard, the cursor is at a
specific, second chosen location after being moved by user input, at which
second chosen location on the image, the image is enlarged and centered in a
zoom process at the second display point (FF 3, 5-8). The combined
teachings of Kaneko and Allard therefore render obvious the required
element of claim 1 of “maintaining a position of the cursor on the second
display point.”
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination of Kaneko and Allard render claim 1 obvious.
B-E. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants do not separately argue the claims in these obviousness
rejections. Having affirmed the obviousness rejection of Claim 1 over
Kaneko and Allard, we also find that the further combinations with
Grossman, Gannon, Kelts, and Roy render the remaining claims obvious for
the reasons given by the Examiner (see Ans. 7-14).
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kaneko and Allard. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.

8 cursor. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random
House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cursor
(accessed: November 25, 2013).
Appeal 2011-011388
Application 11/893,512

11
§ 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 2, 7, 10, 11, and 16, as
these claims were not argued separately.
We affirm the rejection of claims 3-5 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kaneko, Allard, and Grossman.
We affirm the rejection of claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Kaneko, Allard, and Gannon.
We affirm the rejection of claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Kaneko, Allard, and Kelts.
We affirm the rejection of claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Kaneko, Allard, and Roy.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc