13030461 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2018)

Ex Parte Wernecke

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 11, 2018

13030461 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/030,461 02/18/2011 50400 7590 06/13/2018 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 Gregg Wernecke 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. 2058.589US 1 2760 EXAMINER NGUYEN,LEV ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/13/2018 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGG WERNECKE Appeal2017-011208 Application 13/030,461 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-25. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Claims 1, 15, 17-22, 24, and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Microsoft Windows 7 screenshots, 2009 ("MSW"). Final Act. 2--4. Appeal2017-011208 Application 13/030,461 Claims 3 and 5-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over MSW and Nikiel (US 6,263,278 Bl; July 17, 2001). Final Act. 5---6. Claims 8, 9, and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over MSW and Hinckley (US 2006/0085767 Al; Apr. 20, 2006). Final Act. 6-7. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over MSW and Kim (US 2011/0093778 Al; Apr. 21, 2011). Final Act. 7-9. Claims 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over MSW and Migos (US 2012/026100 Al; Feb. 2, 2012). Final Act. 9-10. Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over MSW, Migos, and Robotham (US 2002/0015064 Al; Feb. 7, 2002). Final Act. 10-11. We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention relates to "manipulating objects in a graphical user interface." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A computer-implemented method for manipulating objects in a graphical user interface for a display device, the method comprising: detecting a start of a path selection mode; detecting a first path traversed by a cursor in the graphical user interface; displaying a curve corresponding to the first path in the graphical user interface; and 2 Appeal2017-011208 Application 13/030,461 upon detecting an end of the path selection mode, updating a selection state of one or more objects displayed in the graphical user interface based on the displayed curve, the selection state including a selected state and a deselected state, the updating of the selection state of the one or more objects comprising, for each of the one or more objects: determining a total number of times that the displayed curve passes across the object; toggling the selection state of the object based on the number of times being an odd number; and not toggling the selection state of the object based on the number of times being an even number. PRINCIPLES OF LAW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 15, 17-22, 24, AND 25 BY MICROSOFT WINDOWS 7 SCREENSHOTS Contentions The Examiner finds MSW describes all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds MSW's depiction of selecting multiple icons (using the cursor to make a box by performing a click-and- hold at one comer of the box and then moving the cursor to expand the box) describes the claimed subject matter. See Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner explains that the process of expanding the selection box, then shrinking the selection box, then expanding the selection box, and so on, describes the 3 Appeal2017-011208 Application 13/030,461 claimed subject matter. See Final Act. 2-3, Ans. 12-13; see also MSW Figs. 2--4. Appellant presents, among other arguments, the following principal argument in the Appeal Brief: The language of claim 1 requires that "upon detecting an end of the path selection mode, updating a selection state of one or more objects displayed in the graphical user interface based on the displayed curve." Therefore, "updating a selection state" is based on the displayed curve and not any motion of the displayed curve. Accordingly, the cited "curve C moving in the order of fig. 2, 3 then 4" of MSW simply discloses the movement of a curve which, even if it toggles a selection state, would still be different from the toggling of selection states by the static curve of claim 1. App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 5 ("the asserted displayed curve C of MSW in the cited screenshots (e.g., fig. 2, 3 and 4) is not displayed as passing across any objects at all after the selection rectangle of MSW is completed (e.g., 'end of path selection mode') even if it moves across objects during a path selection to establish the selection rectangle."). Our Review This appeal hinges on one question: what is the meaning of claim 1 's "the displayed curve"? Appellant's Specification discloses the following. Note that the term "path" is used to refer to a sequence of points traversed by a cursor in the graphical user interface whereas the term "curve" is used to refer to a visual element corresponding to the path or a function of one or more paths ( e.g., addition of paths, subtraction of paths, etc.) that is displayed in the graphical user interface. Spec. ,r 50. 4 Appeal2017-011208 Application 13/030,461 Thus, the Specification defines the term "curve" as a visual element corresponding to the path or a function of one or more paths that is displayed in the graphical user interface. Further, the actual language of claim 1 ( emphasis added) recites "upon detecting an end of the path selection mode, updating a selection state of one or more objects displayed in the graphical user interface based on the displayed curve." Thus, "the displayed curve" in claim 1 is the displayed curve (the visual element corresponding to the path) as it appears at the end of the path selection mode. Turning now to MSW, we find that MSW' s expanding the selection box, then shrinking the selection box, then expanding the selection box, and so on, as explained by the Examiner (see Final Act. 2-3, Ans. 12-13) with reference to MSW's Figs. 2--4 does not reasonably describe "the displayed curve" in claim 1 because "the displayed curve" in claim 1 is the static curve as it appears at the end of the path selection mode, and the scope of claim 1 does not encompass a moving curve. We find the Examiner erred in finding MSW's moving selection box describes claim 1 's "the displayed curve," the static curve as it appears at the end of the path selection mode. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 24 and 25 recite similar limitations ("upon detecting an end of the path selection mode, update a selection state ... the displayed curve"). We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 24 and 25 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Claims 15 and 17-22 depend from claim 1. We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 17-22 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. 5 Appeal2017-011208 Application 13/030,461 THE REMAINING REJECTIONS The Examiner does not find that any of the various secondary references cures the deficiency of MSW discussed above with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 5-11. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 5-7 as obvious over MSW and Nikiel; the Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 9, and 23 as obvious over MSW and Hinckley; the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 11 as obvious over MSW and Kim; the Examiner's rejection of claims 12, 14, and 16 as obvious over MSW and Migos; or the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 as obvious over MSW, Migos, and Robotham. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 5-25 is reversed. REVERSED 6