Ex Parte Tijssen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 201814663265 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/663,265 03/19/2015 108982 7590 08/29/2018 Wolfe-SBMC 116 W. Pacific A venue Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99201 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Remon Tijssen 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. P5100-US 8331 EXAMINER LIU, GORDON G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2018 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): docket@sbmc-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. 1 Appeal2018-001979 Application 14/663,265 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON J. CHUNG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-22. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and system for "controlling user interface shape interaction by a computing device." Spec. ,r 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method of controlling user interface shape interaction by a computing device, the method comprising: 1 Remon Tijssen and William T. Ruby are listed as the inventors. 2 Claims 10 and 19 have been cancelled. App. Br. 20, 23. Appeal2018-001979 Application 14/663,265 displaying, by the computing device, a shape in a graphical user interface, the shape described using a plurality of points, each of the points having an associated radius; detecting, by the computing device, an input involving modification of the associated radius of one point of the plurality of points; determining, by the computing device, whether the modification of the associated radius of the one point causes an intersection of the associated radius of at least one other point of the plurality of points neighboring the one point; responsive to the determining that the modification causes the intersection, modifying, by the computing device, the associated radius of the at least one other point of the plurality of points neighboring the one point such that the associated radius of the one point is maintained and intersection does not occur; and displaying, by the computing device, the shape as having the modified associated radius of the one point. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1--4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14--18, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cao et al. (US 2014/0311271 Al; published Oct. 23, 2014) (hereinafter, "Cao") in view of Rapp et al. (US 2011/007 4697 A 1; published Mar. 31, 2011) (hereinafter, "Rapp"). Final Act. 5. Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cao, Rapp, and Jensen et al. (US 2 Appeal2018-001979 Application 14/663,265 8,279,239 Bl; published Oct. 2, 2012) (hereinafter, "Jensen"). Final Act. 25. Claims 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cao, Rapp, and Plichta et al. (US 8,436,821 Bl; published May 7, 2013) (hereinafter, "Plichta"). Final Act. 26. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Cao teaches "displaying, by the computing device, a shape in a graphical user interface," because Cao's Fig. 13 "shows a top perspective view of the manipulator, and it also accepts user inputs, such as a user may get an input by pushing some physical buttons on motors." Final Act. 3, 5. The Examiner also finds that Cao teaches a graphical user interface in Fig. 13, which shows a top perspective view of the manipulator, it is a theoretical graphical interface showing a complex system shape, and it also accepts user inputs, such as a user may get an input by pushing some physical buttons on motors. Ans. 3 (emphasis added). Appellant argues that Cao fails to teach "displaying, by the computing device, a shape in a graphical user interface" as recited in claims 1 and 8 (and similarly recited in claim 18) because Cao "describes a manipulator ( e.g., a robotic arm) that may, at some level, be operated using a conventional computer," but not a "graphical user interface displaying shapes." App. Br. 6-7. We agree with Appellant. The broadest reasonable interpretation differs from the broadest possible interpretation. In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 201 7); see also MPEP § 2111 ("The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning 3 Appeal2018-001979 Application 14/663,265 given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings."). In this case, the Examiner conflates the broadest possible interpretation with the broadest reasonable interpretation. In particular, the Examiner's finding that Cao teaches a "theoretical graphical user interface" is based primarily on figures 4 and 13 and paragraph 156 of Cao. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. Figures 4 and 13 of Cao each show top perspective views ofa manipulator, which is a type of robotic arm. Cao ,r,r 90, 99. Paragraph 156 of Cao teaches the use of a planar joint for a planar displacement subgroup of a three Degree of Freedom translational parallel manipulators. Cao ,r 3, 153. Stated differently, Cao does not show a) displaying, by the computing device, a shape orb) a graphical user interface. Cao Figs. 4, 13, ,r 156. Rather, Cao merely depicts an actual robotic arm (Figs. 4 and 13) that is not shown on a graphical user interface. Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of (1) independent claims 1, 8, and 18; and (2) dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-17, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation