Ex Parte Morris

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2013

10955191 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte ROBERT P. MORRIS
____________

Appeal 2010-009745
Application 10/955,191
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1-28, 30-35, and 37 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 Claims 29, 36, and 38 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-009745
Application 10/955,191

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to graphical user interfaces,
and more particularly to a method and system for providing an adaptive
cursor. Spec. ¶ [001]. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced
below:
1. A method for displaying an object having a shape on a
graphical user interface having a cursor, comprising:
tracking a movement of the cursor;
determining the shape of the object; and
magnifying the object such that a magnification area conforms
to the determined shape of the object in response to the cursor
being placed on a magnification zone.

EVIDENCE CONSIDERED
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fukuhara US 5,807,174 Sep. 15, 1998
Kumar US 5,982,383 Nov.9, 1999
Rodriguez US 6,704,034 B1 Mar. 9, 2004
Berger US 2005/0128211 A1 Jun. 16, 2005
Agrawala US 2005/0177783 A1 Aug. 11, 2005

REJECTION
Claims 1, 7-13, 15, 21-26, 28, 34, 35, and 37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Rodriguez. Ans. 3-6.
Claims 2, 3, 16, 17, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodriguez and Berger. Ans. 6-7.
Claims 4, 5, 18, 19, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodriguez, Berger, and Kumar. Ans. 7-8.
Appeal 2010-009745
Application 10/955,191

3
Claims 6 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rodriguez and Fukuhara. Ans. 8-9.
Claims 14 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rodriguez, Agrawala, and Fukuhara. Ans. 9-11.

ISSUES
Issue 1:
Did the Examiner err in determining that Rodriguez discloses
“determining the shape of the object” and “magnifying the object such that a
magnification area conforms to the determined shape of the object,” as
recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims
14, 15, 27, 28, and 37?
Issue 2:
Did the Examiner err in determining that Rodriguez discloses
“allowing at least a first object to be associated with the object such that
when the object is magnified, the at least the first object is magnified,” as
recited in dependent claim 11, and similarly recited in dependent claims 25
and 35?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of the Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action. We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusions and highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.

Appeal 2010-009745
Application 10/955,191

4
ISSUE 1
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that instead of
determining a shape of the text to be magnified, in Rodriguez the portion to
be magnified is determined by parsing text for delineation tags, searching for
an end of the portion to be magnified, and then magnifying the identified
portion by changing its font size (App. Br. 24-25). In the excerpts of
Rodriguez identified by the Examiner (Ans. 3 (citing Rodriguez, Abstract;
Figs. 3A-3H; col. 5, l. 16 – col. 6, l. 15); Ans. 4-5 (citing Rodriguez, col. 6,
ll. 45-48 for a similar limitation recited in independent claim 37)), Rodriguez
discloses various ways to determine the shape of the object. For example,
according to Rodriguez, the shape of a text object, i.e., the amount of
selected text is defined by using “text delineation tags, such as, for example,
hypertext markup language (HTML) codes in a browser.” Rodriguez at col.
5, ll. 32-36. Similarly, with respect to non-text images, Rodriguez discloses
transferring of images using various formats including bitmap, vector
graphics, and jpeg. Rodriguez col. 6, ll. 45-48. These formats transfer
image information that includes, for example, the format of pixels to be
displayed, i.e., the shape of the image.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the plain language of Appellant’s
claims does not recite a particular manner for performing the determining
step. Not limiting the claims to a particular determining method is also
consistent with Appellant’s Specification. In particular, in Appellant’s
summary of the claimed subject matter, Appellant cites to paragraphs 22-24
of Appellant’s Specification (App. Br. 7), which merely state, “the shape of
the object, as magnified, conforms to the original shape of the object” (Spec.
¶[023]). Thus, the determining step is reasonably interpreted to encompass
Appeal 2010-009745
Application 10/955,191

5
using text delineation tags that define the amount of text that was selected or
using bitmap, vector graphics, or jpeg format information, as disclosed in
excerpts of Rodriguez cited by the Examiner (Ans. 3 (citing Rodriguez, col.
5, l. 16 – col. 6, l. 15); Ans. 4-5 (citing Rodriguez, col. 6, ll. 45-48)).
Similarly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that
Rodriguez’s techniques appear to work for rectangular, sequentially
displayed objects, whereas Appellant’s invention will magnify text and other
objects having both rectangular and non-rectangular shapes (App. Br. 25).
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims
since the plain language of the claims does not recite magnification of non-
rectangular shapes.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3, 12) that Rodriguez
discloses “determining the shape of the object,” as recited in independent
claim 1. Additionally, for the same reasons discussed supra, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding inherency (App. Br. 23).
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that because
Rodriguez does not first determine the shape of an image, the methods
described in Rodriguez cannot ensure that the image object is magnified
such that a magnification area conforms to the determined shape of the
object in response to the cursor being placed on a magnification zone (App.
Br. 26). In addition to the reasons discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings showing that the additional disputed step is met (Ans. 3,
12). For example, as the Examiner correctly finds, Rodriguez discloses a
magnified shape that conforms to the shape of the original object including,
for example, magnified shapes 310 of Fig. 3C, 304 of Fig. 3D, and 316 of
Fig. 3G (Ans. 12).
Appeal 2010-009745
Application 10/955,191

6
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we conclude that the
Examiner did not err in rejecting independent claim 1 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Rodriguez. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2-10, 12-25, 26-28, 30-34, and
37, not separately argued (App. Br. 22-31). 2

ISSUE 2
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that any grouping of
the words “Pearl” and “Tower” would be treated as a single object in
Rodriguez’s arrangement and, therefore, Rodriguez does not disclose an
association between objects such that when an object is magnified, the
associated object is also magnified (App. Br. 27-28). We agree with the
Examiner that Rodriguez discloses the claimed association (Ans. 5, 12).
Although Appellant identifies an excerpt of Rodriguez disclosing the
magnification of multiple words by treating them as a single object,
Rodriguez discloses alternate embodiments. For example, in the excerpt of

2 Additionally, we note that Appellant’s Specification at paragraph 43
discloses “a computer-readable medium is intended to include a computer
readable signal which, for example, may be transmitted over a network.”
Should Appellant elect to continue prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner
to determine whether the “computer readable medium” recited in claims 15-
27, when interpreted in light of paragraph 43, is directed to statutory subject
matter. See In In re Nuitjen, 500 F.3d 1346, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(Transitory forms of signal transmission are not directed to statutory subject
matter.); David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable
Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010); U.S. Patent &
Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject
Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, at 2 (Aug. 2009), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/ dapp/opla/2009-08-
25_interim_101_instructions.pdf.
Appeal 2010-009745
Application 10/955,191

7
Rodriguez identified by the Examiner (Ans. 5 (citing Rodriguez at Figs. 3C-
4); Ans. 12 (citing Figs. 3B, 3G, 4)), Rodriguez discloses, “[t]his
magnification of multiple objects may be, for example, based on the
proximity or distance of the objects from the hotspot of the pointer.”
Rodriguez at col. 5, ll. 64-66 (describing Fig. 3G) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we conclude that the
Examiner did not err in rejecting dependent claim 11 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Rodriguez. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 11, and claims 25 and 35, not separately argued
(App. Br. 27-28).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-28, 30-35, and 37.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj