GUNARATNAM, Vasanthan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 9, 2020

13955331 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2020)

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.
13/955,331 07/31/2013 Vasanthan GUNARATNAM ORA130791 (O-301) 6277
51444 7590 04/09/2020
Kraguljac Law Group/Oracle
4700 Rockside Road
Summit One, Suite 510
Independence, OH 44131
EXAMINER
YI, RINNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2020 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):
DDay@KragLaw.com
MPusti@KragLaw.com
PTOMail@KragLaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VASANTHAN GUNARATNAM, VICTOR MATSKIV,
DIVYA SHAH, ALEX TAM, and PHILIP FOECKLER
Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
Technology Center 2100
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, 14, and 16–21, which constitute all
claims pending in the application. Claims 3, 8, 13, and 15 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle
International Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
The invention relates to a graphical user interface (GUI) for tracking
behaviors or events, such as taking medications. Spec. ¶¶ 2–3, 5, Abstract.
The GUI features a dial indicating a chronological order of events, whereby
event notifications can be modified by a user’s particular interactions with
the dial. Id. An embodiment is shown in Figure 5 of the Specification,
reproduced below.

FIGURE 5
Figure 5 illustrates GUI 505 including an outer dial with a pill-shaped
“activity object” in the center. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 44. The activity object is shown
as being dragged outward by gesture 500, toward “Skip” button 255 (in a
“context panel”). Id. As a result of this gesture, the icon representing
“event” 210 (which is “currently due”) will be “modified,” for example,
from a solid-line pill to a dashed-line pill, indicating that this event has been
skipped. Id. ¶ 44.
Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
3
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter in dispute, and reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing
instructions that when executed by one or more processors of a
computing device cause the computing device to:
generate, in a single display area on a display of the
computing device, a graphical user interface comprising: a dial
that indicates a chronological order for a set of events to be
tracked, wherein the dial includes: (i) a center area that includes
an activity object that is configured to provide controls for
modifying the set of events on the dial, (ii) a context panel that
includes at least one button for changing a state of a selected
event on the dial, and (iii) an icon for each event of the set of
events pinned to the dial about the center area at locations that
correlate with times when the events are scheduled to occur;
in response to the activity object being dragged from the
center area to a different location within the graphical user
interface based on a first gesture received by the graphical user
interface, modify the graphical user interface to change a
selected icon to a first state to reflect a performance of the
event represented by the selected icon that is changed; and
in response to the activity object being manipulated
based on a second gesture received by the graphical user
interface, the second gesture being different than the first
gesture, change the selected icon to a second state to reflect the
performance of the event represented by the selected icon; and
log information about the performance of the event
represented by the at least one of the icons that is changed in
response to receiving the first gesture or the second gesture.
Appeal Br. 19–20 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).
Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
4
References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Yanchar et al.
(“Yanchar”)
US 2011/0004835 A1 Jan. 6, 2011
Inoue et al. (“Inoue”) US 7,460,764 B2 Dec. 2, 2008
Henderson et al.
(“Henderson”)
US 7,774,324 B1 Aug. 10, 2010
Daly, IV (“Daly”) US 8,843,824 B1 Sept. 23, 2014

The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–7, 11–14, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Daly and Yanchar. Final Act. 4–10.
Claims 10 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Daly, Yanchar, and Inoue. Final Act. 10–11.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Daly, Yanchar, and Henderson. Final Act. 11–12.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). On the record before us, Appellant has not persuaded us
of error. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejections and in the Examiner’s Answer, and we provide the following for
highlighting and emphasis.
Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
5
Rejection of Claims 1–7, 11–14, and 18–20
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests “in response to the activity object being dragged from the center
area to a different location within the graphical user interface based on a
first gesture received by the graphical user interface, modify the graphical
user interface to change a selected icon to a first state” to reflect a
performance of the event, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 11–13
(emphases added); Reply Br. 3–5. Appellant contends that Yanchar only
teaches dragging and dropping items to different portions of a clock, and
does not have “an activity object in a center area of a dial that indicates a
chronological order for a set of events.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant further
argues that Daly similarly “fail[s] to teach . . . dragging and dropping an
activity object from the center area of a dial to change a selected icon to a
first state to reflect a performance of the event.” Id. 13. We, however, are
unpersuaded of error.
As the Examiner finds, Daly teaches “dragging of objects to and from
the center to modify them [i.e., change state],” and Yanchar similarly
teaches “dragging and dropping icons around the clock to add or modify the
events/tasks and the time associated with them.” Ans. 12–13. This is seen
in, for example, Figures 56 and 57 of Daly, and Figures 2A and 2B of
Yanchar. We begin with Figures 56 and 57 of Daly, reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
6

Figure 56 is a user interface for providing scheduling information to a user,
having center portion 2052 and rings 2056 corresponding to different time
periods, as well as icon 2058 representing an information item (e.g., a
meeting). Daly 21:5–35. A user may select icon 2058 and drag it toward
center portion 2052, as shown, to display the information associated with
icon 2058 in the center portion. Id. 21:17–21. Figure 57, in turn, illustrates
the same user interface, but with certain events “filtered” based upon
“selections” by the user. Id. 22:18–28.
Appellant argues that Daly only teaches dragging an item inward,
toward the center, as opposed to the limitation in claim 1 of dragging
outward toward the edge of the circle. We are not persuaded by this
argument because, as the Examiner finds, Daly describes an alternative
embodiment of Figure 56 in which the user may “select center 2052” and
Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
7
“drag outwards” toward the edge of the circle in order to (for example)
return an item to a previous time (i.e., different state). Id. 22:10–15.
Moreover, as the Examiner finds, Yanchar also teaches a graphical
user interface comprising a clock (with times in chronological order around
a dial), having drag-and-drop icons representing particular events. Yanchar
Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, ¶¶ 57, 63. Ans. 11–13. Figures 2A and 2B are reproduced
below.

Figures 2A and 2B each illustrate a “graphical planner” having
analog, 12-hour clock 113 and clock hand 109. Yanchar ¶¶ 41, 44.
Connecting line 111 is used to “connect” icons 202 and 203 with relevant
times or durations on the analog clock 113. Id. 46. The interface also
includes event button 103, calendar button 104, and complete button 106.
Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
8
As the Examiner finds, Yanchar teaches a user may “move the graphic
icon (for example, by holding and dragging the icon with his or her finger on
a touch screen) . . . to another location on the main screen, such as a desired
position on the main analog clock 113.” Id. ¶ 57. As a result of this drag
and drop, the “graphic icon is then displayed so as to be associated with the
time of day on which the event or task is to occur.” Id. Although Yanchar
does not explicitly disclose dragging from the center of the clock, one of
ordinary skill would understand that the drag-and-drop items of Yanchar
could be dragged to “another” location, namely, from anywhere to
anywhere. Moreover, as discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection is based
upon the combination of Yanchar with Daly, and Daly specifically discloses
an embodiment featuring drag-and-drop from the center to the outer edge.
See supra; see also In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
prior art fails to teach or suggest “in response to the activity object being
dragged from the center area to a different location within the graphical
user interface based on a first gesture received by the graphical user
interface, modify the graphical user interface to change a selected icon to a
first state” to reflect a performance of the event, as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 19–20 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).
Appellant also argues that the Examiner erred in finding the prior art
teaches or suggests “in response to the activity object being manipulated
based on a second gesture received by the graphical user interface, the
second gesture being different than the first gesture, change the selected icon
Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
9
to a second state to reflect the performance of the event represented by the
selected icon,” as recited in claim 1. Appellant argues that neither Daly nor
Yanchar teaches “manipulating the activity object” in a manner “different
from the gesture used to drag and drop,” in order to change the object to a
“second state.” Appeal Br. 14. We disagree.
As the Examiner finds, Yanchar teaches a “complete button” 106
(Figures 2A, 2B), which a user can “tap” to indicate an event or task is
complete. Yanchar ¶ 83; Ans. 13–14. When a user “taps” the button, “the
graphic icon or generic bubble icon [item 202 in Figure 2B] is then replaced
by a completion icon 202a, such as a star or a popped balloon,” i.e., the
selected icon (which previously could be changed to a first state by
designating or changing a time and type of activity, etc.) is changed to a
second state. Id. (emphasis added). The tapping of a button is a different
gesture than a drag and drop. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error.
Further, as the Examiner finds, Daly also teaches “changing an object’s
importance [i.e., a state] . . . through interactions with controls at the center,”
i.e., other than drag and drop. Ans. 13; Daly 21:29–49.
We also discern no error in the Examiner’s rationale in combining the
references, which Appellant does not challenge. Daly and Yanchar are in
“similar fields of art,” focused on event and task tracking on circular
interfaces, and design variations would have been predictable to one of
ordinary skill. Final Act. 5–6; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007) (a person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton”); id. at 416 (“[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”). Moreover, in an obviousness
analysis, prior art references must be “considered together with the
Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
10
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,” In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994), and we “take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 1. For the same reasons, we are unpersuaded of error
regarding the rejection of independent claims 11 and 18. Dependent claims
2–7, 12–14, 19, and 20 are not argued separately from the independent
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We, therefore, sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 1–7, 11–14, and 18–20.
Rejections of Remaining Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Of the remaining claims, all of which are dependent, claim 21 is the
only claim Appellant argues separately from the independent claims
discussed above. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in
finding Henderson teaches or suggests determining “progress made by the
user toward a defined goal” based on interacting with the events, as recited
in claim 21. Appeal Br. 17. We disagree.
As the Examiner finds, Henderson discloses a “progress-tracking
service to keep track of progress” relating to “healthcare plans,” “weight
goals,” and “exercise requirements,” among other things. Henderson 1:12–
19; Final Act. 11–12. Henderson further discloses “a person . . . enter[s] that
day’s event information and progress indicators (e.g., amount of calories
consumed in a given day and daily measured weight).” Id. 1:28–30. Based
on that information, the invention disclosed in Henderson provides “tracking
progress” toward “performance benchmarks” and “ultimate goals.” Id.
1:17–18, 1:25, 1:38.
Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
11
Accordingly, Henderson teaches all of the elements of the disputed
limitation of claim 21. To the extent Appellant argues that Henderson does
not teach the specific gestures comprising “user interacting” as recited in
claim 1 (claim 21’s base claim), that argument is unpersuasive because the
rejection is based upon the combination of Henderson with Daly and
Yanchar (discussed above), not Henderson alone. See supra; In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d at 1097.
We, therefore, are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 21. Appellant does not allege error in the
Examiner’s rejection of remaining claims 10 and 17. Accordingly, we
sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 10, 17, and 21.
SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 11–14,
18–20
103 Daly, Yanchar 1–7, 11–14,
18–20

10, 17 103 Daly, Yanchar,
Inoue
10, 17
21 103 Daly, Yanchar,
Henderson
21
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–7, 9–
12, 14,16–
21

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12,
14, and 16–21.

Appeal 2019-000335
Application 13/955,331
12

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED