11834695 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

Ex Parte Yang

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 2015

11834695 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111834,695 08/07/2007 Ming-Fon Yang 27498 7590 12/30/2015 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP (SV) P.O. BOX 10500 MCLEAN, VA 22102 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. 073853-0395317 1151 EXAMINER EDWARDS, CAROLYN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2015 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_ip@pillsburylaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MING-FON YANG Appeal2013-010926 Application 11/834,695 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL I.STRAUSS, and WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14--17, 19, 21, 22, and 24--32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2013-010926 Application 11/834,695 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is directed to a "method for operating a menu of a multimedia disk on a computer system" (Spec. i-f 1 ). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for operating a menu of a multimedia disk with use of a cursor controller, wherein the menu comprises a plurality of menu items, the method comprising: a) selecting one of the menu items as a current target title and configuring a position of the target title in the menu as a focus point while the multimedia disk is being operated by a disk playing device in communication with the cursor controller; b) detecting a movement of the cursor controller and moving a cursor in the menu in a direction associated with the detected movement of the cursor controller; c) receiving an input event issued by the cursor controller; d) upon receipt of the input event, identifying and selecting another menu item to \~1hich the target title is shifted, by determining that the another menu item lies in one of a set of predetermined directions of movement associated with the current position of the cursor with respect to the currently configured focus point in the menu when the cursor is positioned at a location other than on a menu item; and e) reconfiguring the focus point as the position of the newly identified menu item to which the target title is shifted, when the cursor is on the newly identified menu item. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14--17, 19, 21, 22, and 24--32 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Dutta (US 2002/0075333 Al, pub. June 20, 2002) and Tsai (US 2008/0022219 Al, pub. Jan 24, 2008). 2 Appeal2013-010926 Application 11/834,695 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Dutta discloses the limitation "determining that the another menu item lies in one of a set of predetermined directions of movement associated with the current position of the cursor ... "(Ans. 4--5). We do not agree. We agree with Appellant that the identifying and selecting another menu item is only performed when an input event has been received and the cursor is positioned at a location other than on a menu item (Reply Br. 3). We also note the portions of Dutta cited by the Examiner (Figs. 7, 8, i-f 3 9) only disclose determining the path of the cursor, and then determining if a next selectable item is in the path (Ans. 4). If not, processing continues to determine the path of the cursor for a next selectable item-a dynamic iteration rather than predetermined direction (http://beta.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/predetermine "to decide (something) before it happens or in advance"). Thus, Dutta does not teach predetermining the direction of movement. With respect to claim 31, we agree with Appellant Dutta's Figure 5A and paragraph 31 do not teach or suggest "determining when a cursor is positioned in 'space between' written text" rather than positioned "on written text" as found by the Examiner (Reply Br. 6). Nor does Dutta teach or suggest the recited "determining that a current position of the cursor simultaneously corresponding to the detected movement is in one of the regions between menu items" (Reply Br. 5---6). Boundary 530 between regions 521 and 522 of Dutta does not constitute a region between menu items as it is merely a line/boundary, and not a region as the Examiner finds (Reply Br. 5; App. Br. 10; Ans. 7). Additionally, claim 31 also recites 3 Appeal2013-010926 Application 11/834,695 "determining one of a set of predetermined directions of movement associated with the detected cursor controller." Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 16, and 31, and claims 2, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24--30, and 32 dependent therefrom. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14--17, 19, 21, 22, and 24--32 is reversed. REVERSED cda 4