Ex Parte Vienneau et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2012

11039524 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2012)

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.
11/039,524 01/19/2005 Christopher Vienneau G&C 30566.333-US-01 9704
55895 7590 01/30/2012
GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, GRANT D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER VIENNEAU and MICHIEL
SCHRIEVER
____________________

Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before KARL EASTHOM, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to generating a user interface, and particularly
to generating a non-modular interface for improved user interaction. (Spec.
Para. [0003].)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus for processing image data comprising:
(a) graphical user input means for navigating a user interface;
(b) processing means,
(c) processing instructions executing on said processing means,
said processing instructions configured to:
(i) generate the user interface;
(ii) define a plurality of user-interface groups
containing a plurality of user interface components,
wherein each user-interface group comprises an area of
the user interface that is displayed according to criteria in
a non-modular user interface;
(iii) layer said groups in response to respective
visibility priority levels;
(iv) optimize a location of said groups in response
to an aspect ratio of a graphical display means;
(v) display said groups in accordance with said
optimized location on said graphical display means,
wherein a relative positioning of the plurality of user
interface components is maintained regardless of the
aspect ratio of the graphical display means; and
(vi) analyze signals from said graphical user input
means to select an image processing operation in
Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

3
response to user activation of one of said user interface
components.
(Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix1 17.)

THE REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Calder (US
5,984,502, issued November 16, 1999) in view of Mariani (US
5,577,187, issued November 19, 1996) and further in view of
Nitschke (EP 1,091,282 A1, published April 11, 2001).
(Examiner’s Answer, dated April 15, 2009, “Ans.” 3-9.)

II. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Calder in view of Mariani and
Nitschke, and further in view of Bagnas (US 5,805,163, issued
September 8, 1998). (Ans. 9-10.)

III. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Calder in view of Mariani and
Nitschke, and further in view of Senechalle et al. (US
2002/0191028 A1, published December 19, 2002). (Ans. 10-11.)

ISSUES
Claims 1, 7, and 14
The Examiner found that Calder teaches the graphical user input
means (a), processing means (b), and certain aspects of the processing
instructions (c) recited in Appellants’ claim 1, including instructions
configured to “layer said groups.” (Ans. 3-4.) However, the Examiner
found that Calder does not disclose, inter alia, processing instructions
configured to “(iv) optimize a location of said groups . . .” and “(v) display

1 Appeal Brief filed December 17, 2008, hereinafter “App. Br.” and
“Claims App’x,” respectively.
Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

4
said groups . . . wherein a relative positioning . . . is maintained . . . ,” as
recited in claim 1. (Ans. 4-5.) The Examiner found that Mariani teaches
processing instructions configured to perform the functions recited in (iv)
and (v) of claim 1, because Mariani discloses a process of proportioning row
heights based on the computer screen height, proportionally adjusting the
widths of display windows, and arranging display windows in a fashion that
approximates the relative position and size of each display window relative
to each other and to the size of the computer screen. (Ans. 4-5.)
Based on the above, the Examiner concluded that the claimed
apparatus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art,
because one of ordinary skill in the design of graphical user interfaces would
recognize the need to optimize the placement and sizing of user interface
groups in a graphical user interface, especially when this placement and
sizing was dependent on the aspect ratio of a monitor. (Ans. 5.) The
Examiner further concluded that one would have been motivated to combine
Mariani with Calder because, in doing so, one could optimize and maintain
the placement of user interface groups when an interface was displayed on
screens of different proportions. (Ans. 5.)
Appellants argue that the prior art does not teach limitations (iv) and
(v) in claim 1. (App. Br. 8.) Appellants contend that the Examiner has
misinterpreted the term “relative positioning” recited in (v), because the
Examiner interprets the term to relate to the positioning of the user-interface
groups with respect to one another and not to relate to the positioning of the
user-interface groups on the display device. (Reply Brief, dated June 15,
2009, “Reply Br.” 12.) Appellants also argue that Mariani teaches that the
display windows are not allowed to overlap, which would prevent use of the
Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

5
layering taught in Calder. (Reply Br. 13-14.) Thus, Appellants argue that
there would be no motivation to combine Mariani with Calder. (Reply Br.
14.) Additionally, Appellants argue that the Examiner is attempting to
equate layering of the groups with optimizing their locations. (App. Br. 11-
12.)

Claims 3, 9, and 16
The Examiner found that Mariani discloses moving a group in
response to user activation because Mariani discloses that a user may find it
necessary to reposition and resize a number of display windows. (Ans. 7.)
In view of Mariani’s teaching, the Examiner determined that one of ordinary
skill would have recognized that, after the automatic optimization of the user
interface groups is performed, that a user may wish to manually readjust the
position of certain groups in the display. (Ans. 14.)
Appellants argue that the text relied on by the Examiner is merely a
description of a prior art technique which provides for a user to manually
adjust the position of a window until borders are closely adjacent and take
up most of the screen. (App. Br. 13.) Appellants argue that such a teaching
is contrary to and inconsistent with the optimizing aspects of Appellants’
independent claims and other teachings of Mariani. (App. Br. 13; Reply Br.
15.)

Claims 5, 11, and 18
The Examiner found that Calder teaches overlapping groups based on
priority levels because Calder teaches a panel manager configurable to float
on top of the desktop as a high priority window. (Ans. 7, 14-15.)
Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

6
Appellants argue that Calder merely describes the ability for one
window, a panel manager, to float on top of other windows and does not
describe the ability for a group that contains a plurality of interface
components to overlap other groups based on priority levels. (App. Br. 14.)
Appellants also argue that Calder discloses that the panel manager has a high
priority because it floats (because it is layered on top), such that the priority
is determined as a result of where the panel manager floats and overlaps,
whereas the present claims provide for allowing groups to overlap based on
visibility priority levels. (App. Br. 14.)

Claims 4, 10, and 17
The Examiner found that Calder, Mariani, and Nitschke do not teach
limiting the movement of a user interface group to the edge of an adjacent
group. (Ans. 10.) The Examiner found, however, that Senechalle teaches
preventing overlapping with the edge of another group because Senechalle
teaches that pane windows do not interfere with one another. (Ans. 10.)
In light of Senechalle’s teaching, the Examiner determined that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the movement of user
interface groups could be limited by the edges of adjacent groups. (Ans.
11.) The Examiner also determined that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Calder, Mariani, and
Nitschke with Senechalle to prevent high priority user interface groups from
being covered by other interface groups in the user interface. (Ans. 11.)
Appellants argue that Senechalle does not teach the ability to move
windows no further than the edge of an adjacent window, but rather that the
windows are automatically arranged such that they do not overlap. (App.
Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

7
Br. 15; Reply Br. 18-19.) Appellants argue that because in the prior art, one
of ordinary skill in the art in designing graphical user interfaces would move
windows to different locations and resize such windows, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have to guess as to where and how the movement of
windows could be limited. (App. Br. 15-16.)
Therefore, the dispositive issues on appeal are:
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in determining that the prior art
would have rendered obvious processing instructions configured to
“(iv) optimize a location of said groups . . .” and “(v) display said
groups . . . ,” as recited in claim 1?
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in determining that the prior art
would have rendered obvious “moving a group in response to said
user activation,” as recited in claim 9?
(3) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Calder discloses “a
group having the highest visibility priority level overlaps the other
groups,” as recited in claim 5?
(4) Whether the Examiner erred in determining that the prior art
would have rendered obvious “a group cannot be moved further
than an edge of an adjacent group,” as recited in claim 4?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme
Court explained that “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

8
which said subject matter pertains.”’ KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation . . . §103 likely bars its
patentability.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
“[T]he test for combining references is not what the individual
references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures
taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).

FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
1. Calder discloses a panel manager 81 configurable to float at the
forefront of the desktop display as a high priority window. (Col. 4,
ll. 3-5; Col. 9, ll. 18-21; Fig. 7.)
2. Calder discloses that the panel manager disclosed therein
comprises unique graphical elements, such as buttons. (Col. 3, ll.
49-50; Col. 8, ll. 66-67; Figs. 6-7.)
3. Mariani discloses that by using an input device, a user can
reposition and/or resize display windows until their borders are
closely adjacent on a computer screen. (Col. 1, ll. 26-34.)
4. Mariani discloses a process whereby the height and width of
display windows relative to each other are scaled by an
approximate ratio based on the height and width of a computer
screen. (Col. 2, l. 40 – Col. 4, l. 6.)
5. Mariani discloses arranging display windows in a fashion that
approximately maintains the relative position and size of display
windows desired by a user. (Col. 2, ll. 34-39; Col. 5, ll. 26-28.)
Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

9
6. Mariani discloses displaying the arranged display windows on a
computer display. (Col. 7, ll. 1-13.)
7. Senechalle discloses pane windows configured not to interfere with
one another. (Para. [0026].)

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1, 7, and 14; claims 3, 9, and 16; claims 5,
11, and 18; and claims 4, 10, and 17, subject to the different grounds of
rejection, separately. (App. Br. 7-16.) Accordingly, we select claims 1, 4, 5,
and 9 as representative claims and confine our discussion to these claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Because Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 2, 6, 8,
12-13, 15, and 19-20 (App. Br. 14), they stand or fall with the independent
claims from which they depend.

Issue One
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that limitations (iv)
and (v) of claim 1 would not have been obvious over the prior art of record.
While Appellants argue that the “relative positioning” limitation (v) recited
in claim 1 must be construed to be limited to positioning the user-interface
groups on a display device, and not to positioning the user-interface groups
with respect to one another, Appellants’ claims do not require such a narrow
interpretation. Claim 1 recites that the “relative positioning of the plurality
of user interface components is maintained regardless of the aspect ratio of
the graphical display means.” There is no indication in the claims that
relative positioning necessarily involves positioning the user-interface
Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

10
groups on the display device to the exclusion of positioning the user-
interface groups with respect to one another. In addition, Appellants have
not directed us to persuasive evidence in the Specification or otherwise that
would compel such a narrow interpretation of the claims. Accordingly, we
interpret “relative positioning . . . is maintained . . .” to include maintaining
the positioning of the user-interface groups with respect to one another, as
found by the Examiner.
Mariani discloses a process whereby the height and width of display
windows relative to each other are scaled by an approximate ratio based on
the height and width of a computer screen. (FF 4.) Mariani discloses that
such a process allows display windows to be arranged in a fashion that
approximately maintains the relative positions and sizes desired by a user.
(FF 5.) Thus, Mariani teaches that a display area of a user interface can be
optimized with respect to an aspect ratio of a computer screen. Mariani
further discloses displaying the arranged display windows on a computer
screen in accordance with the optimized location. (FF 5-6.) As a result,
Mariani discloses that the relative position of each display window’s user-
interface components is maintained regardless of the aspect ratio of the
computer screen.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that claim 1 would
not have been obvious because Mariani teaches that the display windows are
not allowed to overlap, such that Mariani teaches away from layering the
display windows as taught in Calder. However, Mariani also discloses that
windows are often overlapped and can be “layered” on top of each other by
a user. (Col. 1, ll. 12-28.) Thus, both the technique used to handle the
display of multiple windows disclosed in the Background section as well as
Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

11
the technique of arranging windows according to Mariani’s invention
possess advantages and disadvantages, which are to be considered in light of
the prior art as a whole. “[A] given course of action often has simultaneous
advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate
motivation to combine.” Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157,
1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006); (citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d
1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that [one] benefit comes at the
expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to
modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.
Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one
another.”)). In this regard, it would have been well within the skill of an
ordinary artisan to have employed a combination of multiple prior art
techniques, should further manipulation of the display windows be desired
after employing the technique according to Mariani’s invention. Therefore,
we do not agree with Appellants, that Mariani teaches away from the
Examiner’s combination.
With respect to Appellants’ argument that the Examiner is attempting
to equate “layering” with “optimizing,” we note, as the Examiner did, that
the Examiner distinguishes the two, as the Examiner relies on Calder for
layering (Ans. 3-4) and Mariani for optimizing (Ans. 4-5).
Because the Examiner’s Rejection of claim 1 is supported by the
record, we agree with the Examiner that the prior art would have rendered
claim 1 obvious.

Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

12
Issue Two
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that “moving a
group in response to said user activation” is not rendered obvious by the
prior art. Mariani discloses that a user can reposition display windows. (FF
3.) We agree with the Examiner that in view of this teaching, one of
ordinary skill would have recognized that a user could manually readjust the
position of certain groups on the display, even after the method disclosed in
Mariani is performed, should further adjustment be desired. Accordingly,
we agree with the Examiner that the prior art would have rendered claim 9
obvious.

Issue Three
We also find support in the record for the Examiner’s determination
that the prior art discloses overlap of groups based on priority levels. In this
regard, Calder’s panel manager is a user interface group that includes a
plurality of user interface components because it comprises unique graphical
elements, such as buttons. (FF 2.) Further, Calder’s panel manager is
configurable to float on top of the desktop as a high priority window. (FF
1.) We agree with the Examiner that Calder teaches that the panel manager
is displayed on top because it has a higher priority and not vice versa.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Calder discloses “a group
having the highest visibility priority level overlaps the other groups,” as
recited in claim 5.

Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

13
Issue Four
Lastly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have to guess as to where and how the
movement of windows could be limited. In this regard, Senechalle discloses
pane windows configured not to interfere with one another. (Para. [0026].)
In light of Senechalle’s teaching, we agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the movement of user interface
groups could be limited by the edges of adjacent groups.
Further, Mariani teaches that groups can be moved according to a
user’s desire. (FF 3.) Thus, we further agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16)
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
the prior art teachings such that groups could be moved, but that high
priority user interface groups could not be covered by other interface groups
in the user interface. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion
that claim 4 would have been rendered obvious by the prior art.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in determining that the prior art would have
rendered obvious processing instructions configured to “(iv) optimize a
location of said groups . . .” and “(v) display said groups . . . ,” as recited in
claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in determining that the prior art would have
rendered obvious “moving a group in response to said user activation,” as
recited in claim 9.
Appeal 2010-001165
Application 11/039,524

14
The Examiner did not err in finding that Calder discloses “a group
having the highest visibility priority level overlaps the other groups,” as
recited in claim 5.
The Examiner did not err in determining that the prior art would have
rendered obvious “a group cannot be moved further than an edge of an
adjacent group,” as recited in claim 4.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-14, 16,
and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Calder in view of
Mariani and further in view of Nitschke.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 8, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Calder in view of Mariani and
Nitschke, and further in view of Bagnas.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 10, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Calder in view of Mariani and
Nitschke, and further in view of Senechalle.
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).

AFFIRMED
cu