Ex Parte John Archibald et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2017

14323833 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 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.
14/323,833 07/03/2014 Fitzgerald John Archibald 140087 1064
115046 7590
B S TZ/Qu alcomm
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
11/15/2017 EXAMINER
TAYLOR JR, DUANE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2017 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):
fip_group @bstz. com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
susan_mcfarlane@bstz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FITZGERALD JOHN ARCHIBALD and
FRANCIS BERNARD MACDOUGALL
Appeal 2017-003481
Application 14/323,8331
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—24, which constitute all the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Qualcomm, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003481
Application 14/323,833
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to run-time adaptive non-uniform
mapping of user interface events in which cursor operation is enhanced.
Abstract; Spec. 1—5. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added):
1. A method for run-time adaptive non-uniform mapping of
user interface events comprising:
categorizing a display area into a plurality of regions of
either a first type or a second type, regions of the first type having
no operable user interface object, and regions of the second type
having at least one operable user interface object each;
assigning a gravity value to each of the regions of the
second type;
determining whether a cursor is within a first region of the
first type and is being moved toward a second region of the
second type that adjoins the first region; and
in response to determining that the cursor is within the
first region of the first type and is being moved toward the second
region of the second type, the second region having a first gravity
value, applying an acceleration factor based at least in part on
the first gravity value to a cursor movement.
App. Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—15, 17—21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US 2008/0168364
Al; pub. July 10, 2008) (“Miller”). Final Act. 4—7.
Claims 4, 10, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Miller and Wei et al. (US 8,937,589 B2; iss.
January 20, 2015) (“Wei”). Final Act. 7—8.
2
Appeal 2017-003481
Application 14/323,833
ANALYSIS
The § 102(a)(2) Rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Miller discloses the
following claim 1 limitations:
determining whether a cursor is within a first region of the first
type and is being moved toward a second region of the second
type that adjoins the first region; and
in response to determining that the cursor is within the first
region of the first type and is being moved toward the second
region of the second type, the second region having a first gravity
value, applying an acceleration factor based at least in part on
the first gravity value to a cursor movement.
App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 2-A.
According to Appellants, Miller does not disclose “determining
whether...” because, in Miller, “the user's desire to select icon 504 is
assumed as soon as the cursor 502 is placed within gravity field 506” and
“Miller clearly teaches here that once the cursor 502 is placed within gravity
field 506, no further determination is made as to whether the cursor 502 is
being moved further toward icon 504.” App. Br. 7—8 (citing Miller 121);
see also Miller Fig. 5. See also Reply Br. 3^4.
Appellants further argue the Examiner’s inconsistent mapping of the
icons 504 and 505 to the claimed first type and second type results in a
failure of the Examiner to present a coherent argument. Reply Br. 2-4.
The Examiner finds Miller describes icons 504 and 505, construed as
“a second region of the second type,” and another area having no icons 504
and 505, construed as “a first region of the first type.” Final Act. 4 (citing
Miller || 20—22). Miller describes assigning a gravity field 506 surrounding
3
Appeal 2017-003481
Application 14/323,833
high probability icon 504 and an anti-gravity field 507 surrounding low
probability icon 505. Miller || 20, 21, Fig. 5. As described in Miller:
When cursor 502 is placed within gravity field 506, the algorithm
assumes that the user desires to select icon 504 and assists the
user in doing so, for example by either "sucking" the cursor
directly to icon 504 or by enhancing the cursor response in the
direction of icon 504. Likewise, low probability icon 505 may be
surrounded by an anti-gravity field 507. Anti-gravity field 507
can "repel" cursor 502 from icon 505 by decreasing the
sensitivity of the cursor response to mouse movements in the
direction of icon 505 so that a user would have to make larger
and more directed mouse movements to select icon 505.
Miller 121 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings that Miller anticipates claim 1. A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found,
either expressly or inherently described in a single prior art reference, and
arranged as required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of
Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also In re Crish, 393 F.3d
1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Miller describes the cursor in a region of the first type (no icons) and
when moved to a region (gravity field 506) near the second type (icon 504),
the gravity field 506 determines the movement of the cursor from the first
type region toward the second type region. Miller || 20—22, Fig. 5.
Appellants present no persuasive arguments the Examiner’s findings and
interpretation of “determining” are unreasonable, overbroad, or inconsistent
with the Specification. Additionally, we note the term “determining” is not
defined in the Specification. Claim terms in a patent application are given
the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as
4
Appeal 2017-003481
Application 14/323,833
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Crish, 393 F.3d at 1256. Our
reviewing court states that “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their
ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)(intemal citations omitted). The “ordinary
and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would
have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at
1313. The description in the Specification can limit the apparent breadth of
a claim in two instances: (1) where the Specification reveals a special
definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the
meaning it would otherwise possess; and (2), where the Specification reveals
an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. Id.
at 1316. In the instant case, neither of these scenarios apply because the
term “determining” is not even defined in the Specification. Accordingly,
The Examiner broadly but reasonably construed the disputed term.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 7, 13, and 19 which recite the disputed limitations. We
also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15,
17, 18, 20,21,23, and 24.
The § 103(a) rejection
Appellants argue, in view of the Miller deficiency, discussed supra,
the combination with Wei does not cure the deficiency. App. Br. 9—10. As
we find no Miller deficiency, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments.
5
Appeal 2017-003481
Application 14/323,833
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 10, 16, and
22.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—15,
17-21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 10, 16, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
6