Ex Parte Srivastava

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13042250 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/042,250 03/07/2011
72058 7590 08/02/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mohit Srivastava
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.
58083-857791 (B268Cl) 6553
EXAMINER
PHAN, TUANKHANH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatrickstockton.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHIT SRIVASTAVA
Appeal2015-003636
Application 13/042,250
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of Claims 25--43, 45, and 46, which constitute all claims
pending in the application. Claims 1-24 and 44 have been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention relates to displaying visual, menu based cues in
a keyword search of a software application. Spec. 1. Claims 25, 33, and 40
1 Appellant identifies Adobe Systems Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-003636
Application 13/042,250
are independent. Claim 25, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as
follows:
25. A method, comprising:
identifying, in response to a search, an interface object
that belongs to and is accessible via a user interface of a
software application and that is configured for display within
the user interface;
in response to said identifying, determining a selection
path or sequence of choices within the user interface, wherein
the selection path or the sequence of choices is traversable
within the user interface to access the identified interface object
from within the user interface, wherein the selection path or
sequence of choices includes a second interface object that
occurs prior to the identified interface object within the
selection path or sequence of choices; and
displaying a visual cue on the user interface for only a
portion of less than all the determined selection path or the
determined sequence of choices that can be utilized to access
the identified interface object in the user interface.
1A..pp. Br. 18 (emphasis added).
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 25--43, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 7,979,796 B2; Jul. 12, 2011)
("Williams") and Gross et al. (US 2005/0010563 Al; pub. Jan. 13, 2005).
Final Act. 3-8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments which Appellant
could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived.
2
Appeal2015-003636
Application 13/042,250
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and highlight the following for emphasis.
Claim 25
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Williams and Gross teaches displaying a visual cue on the user interface ( 1)
"for only a portion of less than all the determined selection path or the
determined sequence of choices," and (2) "that can be utilized to access the
identified interface object," as recited in claim 25. App. Br. 9-14.
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in finding a rationale to combine
the references. App. Br. 16. We address each argument in tum.
Claim 25, and the disputed limitations, may be understood by
referring to Appellant's Figure 2, which illustrates an embodiment of the
invention. Figure 2 is reproduced below.
100
Adobe Photoshop 104 106 108 102
101
File Edit Image f:f~:f.~~}~~!~.~E:J Filter View [~~~?.~J Help
Arrange
Info 110
[~~~'.~i.:~?.~P.~}-112
i"Dirers-~ 114 ...............
Na1tigator
FIG. 2
3
Appeal2015-003636
Application 13/042,250
Figure 2 shows the Adobe Photoshop application in user interface 100,
including pull-down menus Layer 104, Select 106, and Window 108. Spec.
i-f 25. Figure 2 also includes Search Box 102, in which the user has entered
the word "Layer." Id. The user's search for "Layer" has caused Layer
Menu 104, Select Menu 106, and Window Menu 108 to be highlighted, and
the highlighting is (in this embodiment) the "visual cue" to access the
identified interface object (features associated with "Layer"). Id. Further,
submenu 110 may be displayed (and is displayed in Figure 2) by, for
example, the user clicking on or placing the mouse pointer over highlighted
Window Menu 108, which then shows additional highlighted items Layer
Comps 112 and Layers 114. Id. These items can be accessed by the user
clicking or pointing at them, or in other ways. Id. The embodiment shown
in Figure 2, therefore, assists the user in not only finding particular tools or
menus in the software application, but also in learning the path or menu
structure leading to them. Spec. i-f 1.
The Examiner finds Appellant's claimed "visual cue" in the
combination of Williams and Gross. Final Act. 3. Williams discloses
searching and displaying results in a graphical user interface, and menu
structure therein. Ans. 3; Williams col. 1, 11. 19-23. Williams Fig 4A, relied
upon by the Examiner, is reproduced below.
4
Appeal2015-003636
Application 13/042,250
S~;.f~O- E,::J~·:
Ori) ~,~L-Jf':,...zj~
l\~l'I··~ ~:·1 ~ .. ;..:~·~
l:ib·'.~~
- •• -
Christine ~li·i:f\~~:p~. Class: Freshman. Hometown: Brea, C
High School:BreoOlindo. Height:S-9. Position:Catcher.
www.fonsonly.com/schools/semo/ sporfs/w-softbl/mtt/knob
ADV@MSU~,9~~, people > Ariel :~It~~~
... Ariel '%ITT?'~~ vcnhurl1@msu.edu, bock msu home, copy
©2003 Michigan SoteUniversity.go to overview.go to foe
adv. msu.ed u/ peop!e/ g rod/288- 1 k-
Glen ~~9~
Glen Kl:\~\>£~~; Operations Manager.EMP _ - _Glen2.jpg(68
bytes)Glens!arled working for Imperial Beef in February of
www. imperialbeef.nel/ glen~knobbe.htm-27k-
SrPa~~' lV
... Donor Appreciafon. Mrs, Mcintyre Kdgtn. Mrs. Burke Kd
Mrs. Qualls 1 U. Sr.Pat %Q'qJ'.iJi~; 1Y. Mrs. Rothove 20. Mrs.
FIG. 2A
Figure 2A shows index pane 102 consisting of Internet search results 110,
and scroll bar 106 to scroll through the results. Gross i-fi-123-24. As
indicated by scroll bar 106, not all search results are displayed in the present
view. Figure 2A also shows particular search result 112 selected by a user,
7
Appeal2015-003636
Application 13/042,250
which causes the content (web page) corresponding to that result to be
displayed in a separate content pane. Id. at i-f 24.
In light of the foregoing teachings of Williams and Gross, we discern
no error in the Examiner's finding the references teach "a visual cue" on the
user interface "for only a portion of less than all the determined selection
path or the determined sequence of choices," that "can be utilized to access
the identified interface object," as recited in claim 25. Appellant, however,
argues that even if the combination teaches all of the claim elements, the
Examiner erred in finding a rationale to combine the references. App. Br.
16. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Both Williams and Gross are directed to software search results, albeit
Williams within a user application and Gross on the Internet. 3 As noted
above, the missing claim element supplied by Gross is, essentially,
narrowing the search result displayed to the user. See supra. The Examiner
finds that one of ordinary skill would recognize this narrowing in "focus"
would be advantageous in the search result display of Williams, just as in
search result display of Gross. Ans. 4. Appellant fails to provide any reason
why this finding is erroneous. Moreover, we are persuaded the claimed
subject matter exemplifies the principle, "[ t ]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007); Ans. 5. As the Examiner finds, applying the focused
display of search results taught in Gross, would have the predictable result of
3 Gross, nevertheless, also involves a user application, namely a web
browser. Gross i-f 21.
8
Appeal2015-003636
Application 13/042,250
a narrower, more focused display of results in the analogous search result
display of Williams. Ans. 4--5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 25 as
unpatentable over Williams and Gross.
Claim 45
Appellant argues dependent claim 45 separately, contending the
Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches "associating a user-specified
tag" with the "identified interface object." App. Br. 14--16. The Examiner
finds this element in Williams. Ans. 5. Specifically, Williams discloses a
"search table" consisting of various commands. Williams col. 6, 11. 45--4 7.
As described in Williams, "each command [] is associated with one or more
text strings and/or metadata, including for example a title for command."
Id. at col. 6, 11. 31--43 (emphasis added). See also id. at col. 12, 11. 35--41
(stored "attributes" that can be "used for searching, such attributes including
"user-specific data"). As the Examiner explains; Ans. 5; the commands
described in Williams correspond to the "interface object" of Appellant's
claims, and thus Williams' teaching of "associat[ing]" such commands to
text strings, metadata, or other user-specific data is the same as Appellant's
"associating a user-specified tag" with the "identified interface object."
Accordingly, Appellant's argument does not persuade us of error.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 45 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams and Gross.
Remaining Claims
Appellant does not argue independent claims 33 and 40 separately
from independent claim 25. Nor does Appellant argue dependent claims 26-
9
Appeal2015-003636
Application 13/042,250
32, 34--39, 41--43, and 46 separately. For the reasons discussed above, we
sustain the rejections of claims 26--43, 45, and 46.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 25--43, 45, and 46, are
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
10