Oosterholt, Ronaldus Hermanus Theodorus. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 16, 2020

2019004039 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 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.
13/816,753 02/13/2013 Ronaldus Hermanus Theodorus Oosterholt 2010P00783WOUS 4790
24737 7590 10/16/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
KIM, SANG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte RONALDUS HERMANUS THEODORUS OOSTERHOLT
and HANDOKO KOHAR1
_____________

Appeal 2019-004039
Application 13/816,753
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JOHN A. EVANS, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1, 5, and 7–16. Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicants” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004039
Application 13/816,753

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for controlling
highlighting of one of a plurality of operational objects on a display. See
Abstract. Claims 1, 12, and 13 are independent. Illustrative claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A method of controlling a highlighting of one of a
plurality of objects on a display, the method comprising:
obtaining a spatially continuous movement of a virtual
cursor on the display, wherein the virtual cursor is not
displayed;
when a distance between the virtual cursor and a center
of a first one of the plurality of objects is shorter than a distance
between the virtual cursor and a center of a second one of the
plurality of objects, highlighting the first one of the plurality of
objects displayed on the display so the highlight appears on the
object; and
when the distance between the virtual cursor and the
center of the first one of the plurality of objects is longer than
the distance between the virtual cursor and the center of the
second one of the plurality of objects, controlling the
highlighting to jump from the first one to the second one of the
plurality of objects, wherein the jumping of the highlighting to
an object nearby the virtual cursor is controllably avoided if a
direction of the movement is determined to be directed away
from the nearby object.

Appeal 2019-004039
Application 13/816,753

3

PRIOR ART
Name2 Reference Date
McCaskill US 4,698,625 Oct. 6, 1987
Vaughan US 5,905,497 May 18, 1999
Ording US 2008/0094356 A1 Apr. 24, 2008
Kerr US 2009/0066648 A1 Mar. 12, 2009
Nasiri US 2009/0303204 A1 Dec. 10, 2009
Han US 2010/0185681 A1 July 22, 2010
REJECTIONS3 AT ISSUE4
1. Claims 1, 12, and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
as obvious over Han and McCaskill. Final Act. 5–8.
2. Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
obvious over Han, McCaskill, and Ording. Final Act. 9–10.
3. Claims 7–9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious
over Han, McCaskill, and Kerr. Final Act. 10–12.
4. Claims 10, 11, and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
as obvious over Han, McCaskill, and Vaughan. Final Act. 12–14.
5. Claim 16 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious
over Han, McCaskill, and Nasiri. Final Act. 15–16.

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
3 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
provisions. Final Act 2.
4 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
October 25, 2018, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed April 24, 2019, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed June 6, 2018, the Examiner’s
Answer mailed February 25, 2019, and the Specification (“Spec.”) filed
February 13, 2013.
Appeal 2019-004039
Application 13/816,753

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–5 and 7–16 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Appellant’s arguments have
persuaded us the Examiner erred.
CLAIMS 1, 12, AND 13: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HAN AND MCCASKILL
Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
when the distance between the virtual cursor and the center of
the first one of the plurality of objects is longer than the
distance between the virtual cursor and the center of the second
one of the plurality of objects, controlling the highlighting to
jump from the first one to the second one of the plurality of
objects, wherein the jumping of the highlighting to an object
nearby the virtual cursor is controllably avoided if a direction of
the movement is determined to be directed away from the
nearby object.
The Examiner finds Han teaches controlling selection and deselection
based on a directional information. Final Act. 4 (citing Han, ¶ 45).
However, the Examiner finds: “Han is vague about avoiding selection in
consideration of a direction of a pointing cursor.” Id. The Examiner
supplements Han by finding McCaskill teaches deselecting/de-highlighting
an object as a pointing cursor moves away from the object. Id. (citing
McCaskill, col, 3, ll. 20–41). Accordingly, the Examiner finds a person of
ordinary skill in art would interpret McCaskill’s teaching as controllably
avoiding selection of a nearby object if a direction of the movement is
determined to be directed away from the nearby object, as claimed. Final
Act. 4–5.
Appellant contends McCaskill is inconsistent by disclosing that “[it is
also possible to deselect a selected graphic object, and] this is done by
Appeal 2019-004039
Application 13/816,753

5

moving the displayed pointing cursor away from the object and again
pressing the select button. When this is done, the graphic object is
deselected and dehighlighted.” Appeal Br. 9 (quoting McCaskill, col. 3,
ll. 34–39) (Cited by the Examiner).
Because McCaskill requires a user to press the select button to
highlight or de-highlight an object, the Examiner understands Appellant to
argue such requirement disqualifies McCaskill as teaching the claimed
“controllably avoiding.” Ans. 5. However, the Examiner finds the claim
does not exclude such user intervention. Id. Thus, the Examiner finds,
based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, pausing a
highlighting process until a user presses a select button can be considered as
“controllably avoided if.” Ans. 5–6.
Appellant contends McCaskill teaches that, when the cursor moves
away from a selected object, that object is deselected. Reply Br. 4.
Appellant argues when a cursor moves away from an object, Claim 1
prevents the selection of that object. Id. Appellant argues, in contrast,
McCaskill deselects a previously selected object. Id.
We agree with Appellant that deselecting a previously selected object,
as taught by McCaskill, is not the same as preventing the selection of an
unselected object, as recited in independent Claim 1, and as commensurately
recited in independent Claims 12 and 13. In view of the foregoing, we
decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 12, and 13.
CLAIMS 5 AND 14: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HAN, MCCASKILL, AND ORDING.
The Examiner does not apply Ording to teach the disputed limitation.
See Ans. 6–8.
Appeal 2019-004039
Application 13/816,753

6

In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 5
and 14.
CLAIMS 7–9: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HAN, MCCASKILL, AND KERR.
The Examiner does not apply Kerr to teach the disputed limitation.
See Ans. 8–10.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 7–9.
CLAIMS 10, 11, AND 15: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HAN, MCCASKILL, AND
VAUGHAN.
The Examiner does not apply Vaughan to teach the disputed
limitation. See Ans. 10–12.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claims 10, 11, and 15.
CLAIM 16: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HAN, MCCASKILL, AND NASIRI.
The Examiner does not apply Nasiri to teach the disputed limitation.
See Ans. 12–14.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claim 16.

Appeal 2019-004039
Application 13/816,753

7

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 12, 13 103 Han, McCaskill 1, 12, 13
5, 14 103 HAN, MCCASKILL,
ORDING
5, 14
7–9 103 HAN, MCCASKILL,
KERR
7–9
10, 11, 15 103 HAN, MCCASKILL,
VAUGHAN
10, 11, 15
16 103 HAN, MCCASKILL,
NASIRI
16
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–16
REVERSED