Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 20, 2022

2020004596 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2022)

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. 15/180,934 06/13/2016 Samuel Chow Radakovitz 329302-US- CNT/170101-601C 2223 145266 7590 01/20/2022 NovoTechIP International PLLC 1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite #1025 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER LONG, ANDREA NATAE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/20/2022 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): akhlaghi@novotechip.com docketing@novotechip.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SAMUEL CHOW RADAKOVITZ and BRIAN SCOTT RUBLE ____________ Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUDREAU, 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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19, which are all of the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We AFFIRM IN PART. 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. 4. 2 Claims 5, 14, and 20 have been cancelled. Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to a graphical user interface for controlling visual graphical representation of data in a displayed document. See Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 9. A non-volatile computer-readable storage device storing computer-executable instructions for interacting with a spin control graphical user interface, the instructions executing on a processor of a computer, comprising: determining options to present within a spin control graphical user interface; wherein the options when selected with the spin control are applied to a displayed document; displaying the spin control adjacent to the displayed document, wherein the spin control rotates around a center point; wherein the center point of the spin control is located at a corner of the displayed document; wherein the spin control is divided into pie regions based on the determined options to present within the spin control; wherein each of the pie regions represents one of the determined options; monitoring user input to determine when the spin control is interacted with; updating a display of the spin control in response to the spin control being manipulated by user input; and automatically applying, to the displayed document, an option that is selected in response to the rotation of the spin control. Appeal Br. 41-42 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 9-13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 6-8 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cameron,3 Fitzmaurice,4 and Zuverink.5 Final Act. 8-11. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cameron, Fitzmaurice, and Zuverink, and Easty.6 Final Act. 11-12. The Examiner rejects claims 9-11, 13, 15, and 16 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fitzmaurice and Zuverink. Final Act. 4-7. The Examiner rejects claim 12 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, and Easty. Final Act. 13. The Examiner rejects claims 17 and 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Final Act. 14-15. The Examiner rejects claim 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, AAPA, and Easty. Final Act. 15-16. 3 A. Colin Cameron, EXCEL 2007 Charts: Column, Bar, Pie and Line (accessed Jan. 2, 2019), http://cameron.econ.ucdavis.edu/excel/ ex12charts.html. 4 Fitzmaurice et al., US 2004/0212617 A1, published Oct. 28, 2004. 5 Zuverink, US 2011/0095993 A1, published Apr. 28, 2011. 6 Easty et al., US 6,448,987 B1, issued Sept. 10, 2002. Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 4 OPINION § 101 Rejection Independent claim 9 is drawn to a “non-volatile computer-readable storage device.” The Examiner rejects claim 9 and claims 10-13, 15, and 16 dependent thereon under § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, finding that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9 “covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se.” Final Act. 2-3 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). According to the Examiner, the Specification does not provide a definition for “non-volatile computer-readable storage device” that excludes transitory media, thus “the term ‘device’ given its broadest reasonabl[e] interpretation in light of the specification may be a machine or method used to produce a particular effect.” Id.; see Ans. 17-19. Appellant argues that a device cannot be a signal per se. Appeal Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant argues that the term “non-volatile computer- readable storage device” is “known in the art to be distinguishable from signals per se and volatile or transitory media, and is sufficiently disclosed in the specification for the skilled artisan to appreciate that this claim term is distinguishable from volatile media.” Id. at 7-8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 15-16, Fig. 1). We agree that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “non-volatile computer-readable storage device” to cover a signal per se is unreasonable for the reasons argued by Appellant. The Examiner provides no basis for the finding that the term “device” may include a method-indeed, they fall under separate categories of invention under § 101. Those of ordinary skill Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 5 in the art would not understand the claimed “device” to include signals or transitory media. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claims 9-13, 15, and 16 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. § 103 Rejections Rejection of Claims 9-11, 13, 15, and 16 as Unpatentable over Fitzmaurice and Zuverink Claim 9 Independent claim 9 recites: displaying the spin control adjacent to the displayed document, wherein the spin control rotates around a center point; wherein the center point of the spin control is located at a corner of the displayed document; wherein the spin control is divided into pie regions based on the determined options to present within the spin control; wherein each of the pie regions represents one of the determined options. The Examiner relies upon Fitzmaurice for these limitations, except for “displaying the spin control adjacent to the displayed document” and “wherein the center point of the spin control is located at a corner of the displayed document,” for which the Examiner relies upon Zuverink. Final Act. 5-6 (citing Fitzmaurice ¶¶ 60, 63, Figs. 29, 32; Zuverink ¶¶ 20, 22, Figs. 1-2). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fitzmaurice and Zuverink “to provide a convenient and central location for user selection while also providing a quicker selection of an option to apply to the document.” Id. at 6. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Fitzmaurice for a “partial claim element fails to accurately reflect the subject matter recited in claim [9]” and is improper because “Fitzmaurice cannot possibly disclose Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 6 any claim feature that is conditioned on the recited ‘displaying the spin control adjacent to the displayed document,’ upon which each of the features within this complete claim 9 element is conditioned.” Appeal Br. 12. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, which is akin to attacking the references individually without consideration of what the combined teachings of Fitzmaurice and Zuverink would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant further argues that Fitzmaurice fails to teach or suggest that “the spin control is divided into pie regions . . . wherein each of the pie regions represents one of the determined options” as claimed. Appeal Br. 12. According to Appellant, “Fitzmaurice discloses a circle of controls, wherein each control is shown within a smaller circle at the perimeter of the circle of control, not a pie region.” Id. at 12-13 (citing Fitzmaurice ¶ 60, Fig. 29). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As the Examiner points out (Ans. 20-21), Fitzmaurice explicitly teaches pie regions, each representing a determined option, in Figures 30A-B. See Fitzmaurice ¶ 61 (“A sectioned pie shaped command corner interface 240 (see FIG. 30A) in display 241 has pie slice shaped targets 242 (and corresponding hit zones)”). Appellant further argues that Zuverink is non-analogous art and that the combination is improper because “Fitzmaurice already discloses a plurality of controls on an arc for convenient selection, and this reference Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 7 fails to even suggest that its system for selecting controls is deficient in any way.” Appeal Br. 13, 34-35. Appellant still further argues that the Examiner “fails to cite to any portion of the Zuverink or Fitzmaurice reference supporting the assertion why the skilled artisan would be motivated to make the Fitzmaurice/Zuverink combination.” Id. at 35. We disagree. First, a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We find that Zuverink is both in the same general field of endeavor as the claimed invention, i.e., graphical user interfaces for controlling display of data, and reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in the Specification of providing user-control of visual graphical representation of data. See Zuverink Abstr., ¶ 4; Spec. ¶ 2. Second, it is well settled that a reason to combine the references need not be found explicitly in the prior art, as it may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references. . . . The test for an implicit showing is what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the Examiner provides articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusions of obviousness, and Appellant has not shown why the Examiner's analyses are incorrect. See Final Act. 6; KSR Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 8 Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007) (rejections require some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness). Appellant further argues that Zuverink fails to teach or suggest “displaying the spin control adjacent to the displayed document” as claimed. Appeal Br. 13-14. Specifically, Appellant argues that Zuverink’s spin control is positioned at a corner of the display and overlays a portion of the displayed content, rather being positioned “adjacent to the displayed document” as claimed and described in the Specification. Id. (citing Zuverink ¶¶ 20, 22, 24, Figs. 1-2; Spec. ¶¶ 4, 20, 53, Figs. 2, 3C, 8). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because neither the claims nor the Specification define “adjacent to the displayed document” in any way that precludes overlaying the displayed document in the manner of Zuverink’s spin control. Rather, in describing the position of the spin control, the Specification states that it is “positioned near a displayed document to which it applies. For example, the spin control may be positioned on or near a corner of the displayed document.” Spec. ¶ 4 (emphasis added). Moreover, Figure 8 of the Specification shows spin controls 844 and 846 overlaying a portion of displayed document 842. Thus, the Specification informs us that the claimed “spin control adjacent to the displayed document” encompasses a spin control that overlays a portion of the displayed document. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claim 9. Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 9 Claim 10 The Examiner cites Zuverink for the limitation “the spin control rotates clockwise and counterclockwise” as recited in claim 10. Final Act. 6 (citing Zuverink ¶ 22; Fitzmaurice ¶ 60). Appellant argues: While the cited portion of the Zuverink reference discloses increasing zoom levels based on rotating a rotating radial zoom control clockwise or counterclockwise, the Zuverink reference is limited to just a zoom control and fails to disclose rotation of a spin control exposing different options to apply to the displayed document, as disclosed and recited in this application. Appeal Br. 15. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, which attacks the Zuverink reference individually without consideration of what the combined teachings of Fitzmaurice and Zuverink would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. We agree with the Examiner that Fitzmaurice’s spin control allowing different options to be rotated into view (see Fig. 29) combined with Zuverink’s clockwise and counterclockwise rotation teaches or suggests that “the spin control rotates clockwise and counterclockwise, wherein the rotation of the spin control exposes different options to apply to the displayed document,” as recited in claim 10. See Ans. 22. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 10. Claim 11 The Examiner cites Zuverink for the limitation “the option that is presented within a pie region of the spin control that is displayed diagonally to the displayed document is automatically applied when the spin control is rotated,” as recited in claim 11. Final Act. 6 (citing Zuverink ¶ 22). Appellant argues that “Zuverink fails to disclose that an option within a pie Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 10 region is automatically applied when the spin control is rotated.” Appeal Br. 15. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As discussed above, the Examiner cites Fitzmaurice for options presented within a pie region. See Ans. 20-21 (citing Fitzmaurice Figs. 30A-B). Zuverink teaches: [S]electing zoom-in portion 340 may configure radial zoom control 310 to increase zoom level of displayed electronic content in response to a user rotating radial zoom control 310 either clockwise or counterclockwise . . . . In another particular implementation, zoom level of displayed electronic content may increase in response to a user rotating radial zoom control 310 clockwise while zoom level may decrease in response to a user rotating radial zoom control 310 counterclockwise. Zuverink ¶¶ 22-23. We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Fitzmaurice’s pie regions representing options with Zuverink’s zoom control results in an option within a pie region that is automatically applied when the spin control is rotated. See Ans. 23. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 11. Claim 15 Claim 15 recites “displaying a second spin control at a second corner of the displayed document.” The Examiner finds that “the claim does not require the first and second spin controls to be presented/displayed simultaneously” and cites Fitzmaurice’s disclosure that the spin control may be dragged to different positions on the display. Ans. 23-24; see Final Act. 7 (citing Fitzmaurice ¶¶ 46, 62). Appellant argues that Fitzmaurice discloses only a single spin control that can be moved to different positions. Appeal Br. 15-16. Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 11 We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Fitzmaurice disclose a single spin control that can be moved and fail to teach or suggest “displaying a second spin control at a second corner of the displayed document” as claimed. Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, we find that claim 15 requires a second spin control at a second corner of the displayed document in addition to the “spin control . . . located at a first corner of the displayed document” recited in preceding claim 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 15. Claim 16 The Examiner relies upon Fitzmaurice for “displaying only a name of the currently applied option to the displayed document within the spin control and exposing a different name for an option after the spin control is rotated,” as recited in claim 16. Final Act. 7 (citing Fitzmaurice ¶ 60); see Ans. 24-25. Appellant argues that Fitzmaurice discloses displaying a plurality of controls (e.g., A-E) at once, rather than only a currently applied option. Appeal Br. 16 (citing Fitzmaurice Fig. 29). We agree with Appellant. Fitzmaurice discloses that “[f]unctions or controls A-E are currently visible and functions F-K can be rotated into view,” i.e., displaying the names of multiple options at once, rather than “displaying only a name of the currently applied option” as claimed. Fitzmaurice ¶ 60; see Fig. 29. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 16. Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 12 Summary We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 9-11 and 137 as obvious over Fitzmaurice and Zuverink. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 15 and 16 as obvious over Fitzmaurice and Zuverink. Rejection of Claim 12 as Unpatentable over Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, and Easty Claim 12 recites “rotating the spin control to expose the different options in response to determining a pointing device selecting a region within the spin control that is outside of the pie region that represents a currently applied option.” The Examiner cites Fitzmaurice for “rotating the spin control to expose the different options” and cites Easty for “determining a pointing device selecting a pie region within the spin control that is outside of the pie region that represents a currently applied option.” Final Act. 13 (citing Fitzmaurice ¶ 60; Easty 5:11-35); Ans. 34-36 (citing Easty Figs. 1a-b). The Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Easty with the other applied references in order to “provide for quicker selection of a desired menu item.” Final Act. 13. Appellant argues that “[s]ince the entire double-ring menu of Easty is exposed to the user, all selectable icons are always exposed; so Easty can hardly disclose rotating the spin control to expose the different options.” Appeal Br. 27-28. Appellant further argues that Easty fails to disclose pie regions. Id. at 28 (citing Easty Fig. 1c). Appellant additionally argues that 7 Appellant does not separately argue claim 13. Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 13 the Examiner has not properly established a motivation to combine Easty with the other applied references. Id. at 27. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, which attacks Easty individually without consideration of what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. We agree with the Examiner that Fitzmaurice’s spin control allowing different options represented by pie regions to be rotated into view/exposed (see Figs. 29, 30A-B) combined with Easty’s rotation of a spin control in response to a cursor selecting a currently unapplied icon/option (see Easty 5:11-35) teaches or suggests “rotating the spin control to expose the different options in response to determining a pointing device selecting a region within the spin control that is outside of the pie region that represents a currently applied option,” as claimed. See Ans. 34-36. Moreover, as explained above, we find that the Examiner provides sufficiently articulated reasoning and sufficient rational underpinning to support the conclusions of obviousness. See Final Act. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 12 as obvious over Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, and Easty. Rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 6-8 as Unpatentable over Cameron, Fitzmaurice, and Zuverink Claim 1 The Examiner relies upon Cameron for the limitation “the chart is automatically created and displayed upon receiving the selection of data,” as recited in independent claim 1. Final Act. 9 (citing Cameron 1-2). The Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to one of Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 14 ordinary skill in the art to combine Cameron, Fitzmaurice, and Zuverink “to provide an alternative menu control for producing the predictable result of affecting the chart while providing an interface at a location that allows a natural motion to approach the interface, thereby increasing the user’s experience,” as well as “to provide a convenient and central location for user selection thereby increasing the user’s interactive experience with the document.” Id. at 9-10. In response, Appellant argues: Cameron on page 1 discloses that a user first must “Select the data to appear to appear (sic) in the chart.” The user then must “Use the Insert tab and Charts Group and click on the relevant chart in this group.” Even assuming that a chart is then displayed (which Cameron does not disclose), this reference discloses a manual, multi-step process for creating and displaying a chart of selected data - not the recited automatic creation and display of the chart upon receiving the selection of data. Appeal Br. 19. The Examiner responds that the term “upon” does not require the chart to be automatically created and displayed “directly after or in response to selection of data” and that “the claim language does not preclude additional steps for the automatic creation of the chart.” Ans. 25. We agree with the Examiner that the claim language does not preclude Cameron’s step of “us[ing] the Insert tab and Charts Group and click[ing] on the relevant chart in this group” to create a chart. Claim 1 does not recite the step of “receiving a selection of data” in detail, such as specifying what receives the selection of data. We find that Cameron teaches or suggests the chart generating software receiving the selection of data after the user selects the data and clicks on the relevant chart. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Cameron teaches or at least suggests that “the Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 15 chart is automatically created and displayed upon receiving the selection of data” as claimed. Appellant further argues that Cameron fails to disclose “displaying adjacent to the chart a spin control graphical user interface that rotates around a center point” and “pie regions” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 19-20 (emphasis added). This argument is unpersuasive because Appellant attacks Cameron individually without consideration of what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. We agree with the Examiner that Cameron’s graphical user interface displayed adjacent to the chart (see Cameron 4, 7) combined with Fitzmaurice and Zuverink’s spin control graphical user interfaces having pie regions rotating around a center point (see Fitzmaurice Fig. 29; Zuverink Figs. 1-2) teaches or suggests “displaying adjacent to the chart a spin control graphical user interface that rotates around a center point” and “pie regions around the center point of the spin control,” as recited in claim 10. See Final Act. 8-10; Ans. 26. Appellant still further argues that “since Cameron fails to disclose the recited spin control interface and is completely silent regarding the asserted convenient and central location, it can hardly be concluded that the Cameron reference provides any motivation” for the proposed combination of references. Appeal Br. 36. As explained above, however, we find that the Examiner provides sufficiently articulated reasoning and sufficient rational underpinning to support the conclusions of obviousness. See Final Act. 9-10. Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 16 Appellant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 20-22) are similar to those made with respect to claim 9, and are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1. Claim 2 Appellant’s argument with respect to claim 2 (Appeal Br. 22-23) is similar to Appellant’s argument with respect to claim 10, and is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 2. Claims 6 and 8 Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 6 and 8 (Appeal Br. 23-24) are similar to those made with respect to claims 15 and 16, respectively, and are persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 6 and 8. Claim 7 Claim 7 recites that “the spin control includes options for sorting the displayed chart or changing a type of the displayed chart.” The Examiner cites Cameron’s disclosure of a menu with options for changing a chart type, as well as Fitzmaurice and Zuverink’s spin controls. Final Act. 10 (citing Cameron 7); Ans. 29. Appellant argues that “Cameron fails to disclose a spin control” and thus “cannot possibly disclose any element related to such a spin control.” Appeal Br. 23. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, which attacks Cameron individually without consideration of what the combined teachings Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 17 of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. We agree with the Examiner that Cameron’s menu with options for changing a chart type combined with Fitzmaurice and Zuverink’s spin control teaches or suggests that “the spin control includes options for sorting the displayed chart or changing a type of the displayed chart” as recited in claim 7. See Ans. 29. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 7. Summary We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7 as obvious over Cameron, Fitzmaurice, and Zuverink. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 6 and 8 as obvious over Cameron, Fitzmaurice, and Zuverink. Rejection of Claims 3 and 4 as Unpatentable over Cameron, Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, and Easty Claim 3 Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 3 (Appeal Br. 25-26) are similar to those made with respect to claim 12, and are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 3 as obvious over Cameron, Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, and Easty. Claim 4 Claim 4 recites that “a rotation of the spin control automatically selects another option and applies the another option to the displayed chart.” The Examiner cites Easty’s disclosure of clicking on an icon in a menu ring, which rotates the menu ring such that the clicked icon is located at the top of the ring and highlighted, and that digital information corresponding to the Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 18 selected icon is delivered to the user. Easty 5:1-6:13, Figs. 1a-c; see Final Act. 12; Ans. 33. Appellant argues that “[i]n contrast to the recited rotation of the spin control to select an option, the Easty system operates in reverse by first selecting an icon, followed by the rotation of the menu rings until the selected icon is on top of the ring.” Appeal Br. 26 (citing Easty 5:27-31, 45-49). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Rotation of Easty’s menu ring (via clicking an icon) selects another option for digital information and sends that digital information to the user. Easty 5:1-6:13. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Easty’s disclosure, combined with Cameron’s chart display options and Fitzmaurice and Zuverink’s spin control, teaches or suggests that “a rotation of the spin control automatically selects another option and applies the another option to the displayed chart” as recited in claim 4. Appellant further argues that “Easty is a non-analogous reference directed to a double-ring circular menu for selecting digital content for viewing.” Appeal Br. 25 (citing Easty Abstr., Fig. 1c). We disagree that Easty is non-analogous art. Specifically, we find that Easty is both in the same general field of endeavor as the claimed invention, i.e., graphical user interfaces for controlling display of data/content, and reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in the Specification of providing user-control of the display of data/content. See Easty Abstr., 1:6-14; Spec. ¶ 2; Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 4 as obvious over Cameron, Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, and Easty. Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 19 Rejection of Claims 17 and 18 as Unpatentable over Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, and AAPA Claim 17 Independent claim 17 recites “removing the spin control from the display in response to the displayed document being removed from the display.” The Examiner finds: Figure 3 of Fitzmaurice discloses a close button in the top right hand corner of the window. It is Admitted Prior Art that it is well-known in the art of graphical user interfaces that the button with an X located usually in the top right hand portion of a window upon selection will close/exit an application. Selection of the button in the instance of Fitzmaurice would close the application which will also close the corresponding spin control. Final Act. 14; see Ans. 36-37. The Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fitzmaurice and Zuverink with the well-known X button in order to “quickly close and therefore remove an application.” Final Act. 14. Appellant “agrees that the X in the upper right corner of Fig. 3 of Fitzmaurice typically represents a button for closing an application and everything displayed by that application,” but argues that claim 17 recites “removing the spin control from the display in response to the displayed document being removed from the display,” not in response to closing an application. Appeal Br. 29. Appellant further argues that Fitzmaurice fails to disclose the display of any document. Id. Appellant additionally argues that “the skilled artisan in possession of the Fitzmaurice reference would have no need to look elsewhere ‘to quickly close and therefore remove an application’” and that “Zuverink is completely silent regarding the asserted benefit of quickly closing and removing an application.” Id. at 37. Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 20 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the Examiner that using an X button to close out the application in the combination of the references would remove the displayed document from the display, and as a result would also remove the spin control from the display. See Ans. 36-37. Furthermore, the Examiner relies upon Zuverink, not Fitzmaurice, for the recited “displayed document.” See Final Act. 5 (citing Zuverink ¶ 20 (disclosing displayed documents “such as a map, a photo, text, or the like”)). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combined references teach or suggest “removing the spin control from the display in response to the displayed document being removed from the display,” as claimed. Moreover, as explained above, we find that the Examiner provides sufficiently articulated reasoning and sufficient rational underpinning to support the conclusions of obviousness. See Final Act. 14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 17 as obvious over Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, and AAPA. Claim 18 Claim 18 recites that “the spin control rotates clockwise and counterclockwise, wherein the rotation of the spin control exposes different options to apply to the document; wherein the currently applied option is presented within a pie region of the spin control that is displayed diagonally to the document.” The Examiner cites Fitzmaurice’s spin control and Zuverink’s spin control with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. Final Act. 15 (citing Fitzmaurice ¶ 60, Fig. 29); Ans. 38-39. Appellant argues that Fitzmaurice is silent regarding the “clockwise and counterclockwise” limitation and displaying the interface “diagonally to the document.” Appeal Br. 31. Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 21 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As discussed above, the Examiner relies upon Zuverink, not Fitzmaurice, for clockwise and counterclockwise rotation of the spin control. See Zuverink ¶ 22. And we find that displaying the spin control in a corner of a displayed document as taught by Fitzmaurice and Zuverink meets the limitation “the currently applied option is presented within a pie region of the spin control that is displayed diagonally to the document.” Appellant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim 18 (Appeal Br. 31) are similar to those made with respect to claims 9 and 17, and are unpersuasive for reasons discussed above. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combined references teach or suggest all the elements of claim 18. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 18 as obvious over Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, and AAPA. Rejection of Claim 19 as Unpatentable over Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, AAPA, and Easty Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 19 (Appeal Br. 32-33) are similar to those made with respect to claim 12, and are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 19 as obvious over Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, AAPA, and Easty. Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 22 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4, 7, 9-13, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 8, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 9-13, 15, 16 101 Eligibility 9-13, 15, 16 1, 2, 6-8 103 Cameron, Fitzmaurice, Zuverink 1, 2, 7 6, 8 3, 4 103 Cameron, Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, Easty 3, 4 9-11, 13, 15, 16 103 Fitzmaurice, Zuverink 9-11, 13 15, 16 12 103 Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, Easty 12 17, 18 103 Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, AAPA 17, 18 19 103 Fitzmaurice, Zuverink, AAPA, Easty 19 Overall Outcome 1-4, 7, 9-13, 17-19 6, 8, 15, 16 Appeal 2020-004596 Application 15/180,934 23 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). AFFIRMED IN PART