2020004645 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2021)

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 25, 2021

2020004645 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2021)

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. 13/645,526 10/05/2012 Neal Osotio 337204-US-NP 2427 69316 7590 01/25/2021 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER CARVALHO, ERROL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2021 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): chriochs@microsoft.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NEAL OSOTIO and EUN HYUNG KIM Appeal 2020-004645 Application 13/645,526 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOYCE CRAIG, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15 and 21–25. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004645 Application 13/645,526 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention, according to Appellant, generally relates to a data and user interaction based on device proximity. See Spec. ¶¶ 3–4. Claims 1 and 9, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system, comprising: a processor and executable instructions stored on a computer readable media that, when executed, cause the system to perform acts comprising: detecting, using a sensor subsystem of a device, proximity of a user to the device; identifying the user via a recognition technology of the device to obtain user identification; responsive to identifying the user, presenting a plurality of interactable hotspots and content customized to the user on a display of the device; detecting, using the sensor subsystem, a distance of the user or the user's hand to the device; determining a proximity range based on the distance comprising: setting the proximity range to a close out of range proximity range responsive to the distance falling into the close out of range proximity range, setting the proximity range to a sweet spot proximity range responsive to the distance falling into the sweet spot proximity range, and setting the proximity range to a distant out of range proximity range responsive to the distance falling into the distant out of range proximity range; changing operation of the device based on the proximity range. 9. A computer-implemented method, comprising machine- readable instructions that when executed by a hardware processor, perform acts of: detecting proximity of a user to a user device, using the user device; determining a distance to the user or a portion of the user; Appeal 2020-004645 Application 13/645,526 3 identifying the user via a recognition technology of the user device to obtain user identification; displaying a wallpaper in a visual environment of a display of the user device along with a plurality of graphical hotspots, without displaying content associated with the plurality of graphical hotspots; accessing user information based on the user identification; associating different content related to the user information with each of the plurality of graphical hotspots; continuously tracking the distance to the user or the portion of the user, and responsive to the distance: revealing content associated with one of the graphical hotspots in response to detecting the user or the portion of the user at a first distance; increasing a size of the revealed content as the distance to the user or the portion of the user decreases below the first distance, until a second distance is reached; and decreasing a size of the revealed content as the distance to the user or the portion of the user decreases below a third distance, where the third distance is smaller than the second distance. Appeal Br. 48, 50 (Claims App’x). REJECTIONS2 Claims 1–7,3 9–11, 13–15, 23, and 25 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Strunk et al. (US 2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew rejections of claims 1–15 and 21– 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 3–4. 3 The Examiner did not identify claim 7 in the rejection heading, but analyzed claim 7 in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 9. We understand the Examiner to have rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we include claim 7 in our claim listing for clarity. Appeal 2020-004645 Application 13/645,526 4 2003/0078840 A1, published Apr. 24, 2003) (“Strunk”) and KIM et al. (US 2009/0237372 A1, published Sept. 24, 2009) (“Kim”). Final Act. 5. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Strunk, Kim, and Pang et al. (US 2010/0271177 A1, published Oct. 28, 2010) (“Pang”). Final Act. 15. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Strunk, Kim, and HILDRETH et al. (US 2009/0217211 A1, published Aug. 27, 2009) (“Hildreth”). Final Act. 15. Claims 21, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Strunk, Kim, and Bennett et al. (US 2013/0104059 A1, published Apr. 25, 2013) (“Bennett”). Final Act. 16. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the cited portions of Strunk and Kim do not teach or suggest the limitation “responsive to identifying the user, presenting a plurality of interactable hotspots and content customized to the user on a display of the device.” Appeal Br. 29. Appellant argues that Strunk’s interactive poster, relied on by the Examiner, “appears to be more like the claimed ‘content customized to the user’ than the claimed ‘interactive hotspot.’” Id. at 31. Appellant further argues that, even if Strunk’s poster could be an “interactable hotspot,” as recited in claim 1, “displaying a single poster at a time does not equal the claim language which states that a plurality of hotspots are displayed.” Id. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found that paragraphs 14 and 54 of Strunk teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 6–7. The Examiner explained that Strunk’s Appeal 2020-004645 Application 13/645,526 5 system comprising a plurality of Interactive Posters may select the Interactive Poster (hotspot) to display at a particular time responsive to a Customer Biometrics Sensing Device; Strunk [0054] and also its system can identify users and can use the information to select and display personalized and targeted ads (customized content). Strunk [0014]. Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 5–6. Nowhere, however, did the Examiner clearly identify where Strunk or Kim teaches or suggests “presenting a plurality of interactable hotspots and content customized to the user on a display,” as claim 1 requires. As Appellant points out, “hotspot” is used differently and independently from “content customized to the user” in the Specification and in the claims, which indicates these terms have different meanings. See Appeal Br. 30–31. Moreover, the claim requires presenting “a plurality of interactable hotspots” to the user on the display. The cited portion of paragraph 54 of Strunk, relied on by the Examiner as teaching the recited “plurality of interactable hotspots,” merely teaches selecting one poster to display at a time. See Stark ¶ 54; Ans. 6. For these reasons, on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Strunk and Kim do not teach or suggest the limitation “responsive to identifying the user, presenting a plurality of interactable hotspots and content customized to the user on a display of the device,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 15. Because we find it dispositive that the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that the cited prior art teaches or reasonably suggests the claimed “presenting a plurality of interactable hotspots and content customized to the user on a display,” we do not address other issues raised by Appellant’s arguments related to claims 1 and 15. See Beloit Corp. Appeal 2020-004645 Application 13/645,526 6 v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claims 1 and 15, as well as claims 2–8 and 21–25, dependent thereon. Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 9, which recites “displaying a wallpaper in a visual environment of a display of the user device along with a plurality of graphical hotspots, without displaying content associated with the plurality of graphical hotspots” and “associating different content related to the user information with each of the plurality of graphical hotspots.” Appeal Br. 33. The Examiner relied on virtual interactive buttons 28 and 30 in Figures 1A and 11 of Strunk as teaching the “plurality of graphical hotspots” in the “displaying” step, as recited in claim 9. Ans. 7. The Examiner, however, relied on the interactive poster taught in Stunk paragraph 51 as the “plurality of graphical hotspots” in the “associating” step of claim 9. Thus, the Examiner failed to direct our attention to where precisely Strunk teaches “a plurality of graphical hotspots,” as set forth in claim 9. For these reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Strunk and Kim teaches the disputed limitations of claim 9. Because we find it dispositive that the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that the cited prior art teaches or reasonably suggests the claimed “plurality of graphical hotspots,” we do not address Appeal 2020-004645 Application 13/645,526 7 other issues raised by Appellant’s arguments related to claim 9. See Beloit, 742 F.2d at 1423. Accordingly, on the record before us, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 9, as well as the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 10–14, dependent thereon. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–15 and 21–25. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 9–11, 13–15, 23, 25 103(a) Strunk, Kim 1–7, 9–11, 13–15, 23, 25 8 103(a) Strunk, Kim, Pang 8 12 103(a) Strunk, Kim, Hildreth 12 21, 22, 24 103(a) Strunk, Kim, Bennett 21, 22, 24 Overall Outcome: 1–15, 21–25 REVERSED