Ex Parte Chambers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

12969132 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2017)

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.
12/969,132 12/15/2010 Christopher Chambers 81230.104US5 3653
34018 7590 01/18/2017
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 WEST WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
GUTIERREZ, ANDRES E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2017 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):
j arosikg @ gtlaw .com
chiipmail @ gtlaw .com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER CHAMBERS, WAYNE SCOTT,
CHERYL SCOTT, ALLEN YUH, and PAUL D. ARLING
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
Technology Center 2100
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to
computer-readable media for providing an alterable user interface on a touch
screen display of a portable electronic device. The Examiner rejected the
claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Statement of the Case
Background
“This invention relates generally to user interfaces for electronic
devices. Exemplary devices include personal digital assistants (‘PDAs’),
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Universal
Electronics Inc. (see App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
Web Tablets, touch screen remote controls, mobile phones, lap-top
computers, and the like” (Spec. 1,11. 16—18).
The Claims
Claims 1—7 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as
follows:
1. A computer-readable media embodied in a non-transient,
physical memory device having stored thereon computer-
executable instructions for providing an alterable user interface
comprised of a user interface page having a plurality of user
interface elements displayed on a touch screen display of a
portable electronic device, the instructions performing steps
comprising:
pre-defming within the touch screen display of the portable
electronic device a first area which is dedicated for use in
accepting user input indicating a desire to modify a first interface
characteristic of the user interface page displayed on the touch
screen display;
accepting user input via the first area of the touch screen
display, wherein the user input comprises a motion made across a
surface of the touch screen display made to indicate a desire to
modify a first interface characteristic of the user interface page
displayed on the touch screen display; and
in response to the user input, causing the first interface
characteristic of the user interface page displayed on the touch
screen display to be modified such that a first interface state of a
plurality of interface states for the user interface page is displayed
on the touch screen display;
wherein each of the plurality of interface states for the user
interface page displayed on the touch screen display comprises a
unique subset of the plurality of user interface elements;
wherein user input comprising a motion made in a first
direction within the first area of the touch screen display causes the
first interface characteristic of the user interface page displayed on
the touch screen display to be modified such that the first interface
2
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
state of the plurality of interface states for the user interface page is
displayed on the touch screen display; and
wherein user input comprising a motion made in a second
direction opposite to the first direction within the first area of the
touch screen display causes the first interface characteristic of the
user interface page displayed on the touch screen display to be
modified such that a second interface state of the plurality of
interface states for the user interface page is displayed on the touch
screen display.
The issue
The Examiner rejected claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Choi,2 Hill,3 and Chermesino4 (Ans. 2—8).
The Examiner finds Choi teaches “a graphical user interface” that
accepts “user input via the first area of the touch screen display, wherein the
user input comprises a motion made across a surface of the touch screen
display” as “when an icon is touched and released the features of that icon
are magnified so the user [may] make a selection of a key or feature” (Ans.
3).
The Examiner acknowledges that Choi “does not explicitly disclose
that the input comprises a motion made across the screen in two (2) distinct
directions to manipulate the on screen objects” (Ans. 4). The Examiner also
acknowledges that Choi does not teach “pre-defming within the touch screen
display of the portable electronic device a first area which is dedicated for
use in accepting user input” (Ans. 5).
2 Choi et al., US 6,211,856 Bl, issued Apr. 3, 2001 (“Choi”).
3 Hill et al., US 2005/0057524 Al, published Mar. 17, 2005 (“Hill”).
4 Chermesino, J., US 2004/0183834 Al, published Sept. 23, 2004
(“Chermesino”).
3
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
The Examiner finds Hill teaches “a gesture recognition method
includes detecting multiple pointers in close proximity to a touch surface to
determine if the multiple pointers are being used to perform a known
gesture” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds Chermesino teaches “a computing
device comprising graphical data for displaying visual attributes of the soft
input device on a display of the computing device, position data for
controlling a position of the soft input device on the display, wherein the
position data is editable by a user during runtime” (Ans. 5).
The Examiner finds it obvious to “have modified Choi’s interface to
include Hill’s gesture motions in order to simplify user input by
implementing a passive touch system” and to “have further modified Choi’s
touch interface to include specialized touch areas capable of generating
commands as taught by Chermesino as including such teachings allow for
efficient interactivity and facilitate data entry by the users” (Ans. 5—6).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Choi, Hill,
and Chermesino renders the claims obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Choi teaches a graphical user interface (GUI) “touch screen
display on a hand-held device that provides a maximum number of icons on
the display yet the features of the icons are easily accessible by a user” (Choi
1:53-56).
2. Choi teaches “a zoom feature whereby a relatively small icon is
provided on the GUI such that its functions are recognizable but not easily
accessable by a user, but upon touch of the icon by a user the icon is made
4
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
larger or magnified so that its functions can be accurately touched by a
user’s finger or stylus” (Choi 1:57—62).
3. Figures 1A—C of Choi are reproduced below:
FIGS, la and lb show a PDA 10 having a touch-screen GUI 13
in accordance with the invention. The keyboard icon 12 is
displayed such that it is large enough to see its functionalities,
but too small for convenient touch screen activation of a single
key. If a user touches area 14 of the keyboard icon 12 the
resulting display 16 is shown in FIG. lb. As can be seen from
this display 16 the individual keys surrounding area 14 are
magnified and large enough for easy touch screen activation of
a single key by a finger . . .
(Choi 2:57-65).
4. Hill teaches a
touch system is able to determine when multiple pointers
contact and move across the touch surface. This of course
provides for enhanced functionality as compared to analog
resistive touch systems that are only able to track a single
pointer. Although enhanced functionality is provided by the
above-described camera-based touch system, to-date, this
5
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
enhanced functionally has not been fully exploited. It is
therefore an object of the present invention to provide a novel
gesture recognition method and touch system incorporating the
same.
(Hill 1 8).
5. Figures 4A—F of Hill are reproduced below:
FIGS. 4a to 4e illustrate up/down and left/right scroll gestures.
If the user contacts the touch surface 60 with a pair of fingers
simultaneously over an application window displayed on the
touch surface and the fingers are closely and generally
horizontally spaced, the driver recognizes the simultaneous
finger contacts as a scroll gesture and injects a scroll event into
the application. Pointer position data conveyed to the
6
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
application by the driver in response to subsequent vertical
movement of the fingers is interpreted by the application either
as scroll up or scroll down commands.
(Hill 1 50).
6. Figure 7 of Chermesino is reproduced below:
FIG. 7
700 X
701
POSITION A SOFTWARE KEYBOARD ON AN
ELECTRONIC DISPLAY AT A POSITION
DEFINED BY A USER DURING RUNTIME
............:...
x SIZE THE SOFTWARE KEYBOARD ON THE ELECTRONIC DISPLAY ACCORDING TO A SIZE
AND PROPORTIONALITY DEFINED BY THE
USER DURING RUNTIME
702-
703X
CONFIGURE ELEMENTS OF THE SOFTWARE
KEYBOARD ON THE ELECTRONIC DISPLAY
ACCORDING TO A CONFIGURATION DEFINED BY
THE USER DURING RUNTIME, SUCH AS BY
LOCATING, ASSIGNING FUNCTIONS TO, AND/
OR DESIGNING AN APPEARANCE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS
I
TEMPORARILY LOCK THE SOFTWARE
KEYBOARD TO PREVENT THE USER FROM
ACCIDENTALLY PERFORMING ONE OR
MORE OF THE POSITIONING, SIZING,
AND/ OR CONFIGURING. FEATURES
704
UNLOCK THE SOFTWARE KEYBOARD
TO ALLOW THE USER TO PERFORM
ONE OR MORE OF THE POSITIONING,
SIZING, AND CONFIGURING FEATURES
705'
DISPLAY A MENU TO THE USER, WHEREIN
THE MENU PRESENTS OPTIONS TO THE
USER FOR PERFORMING AT LEAST ONE
OF THE POSITIONING, SIZING, AMO/OR
CONFIGURING FEATURES
FIG. 7 depicts a flowchart of steps according to embodiments
described herein. In step 700, a software keyboard is
7
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
positioned on an electronic display at a position defined by a
user during runtime. In step 701, the software keyboard is sized
on the electronic display according to a size and proportionality
defined by the user during runtime. The elements of the
software keyboard are configured, in step 702, on the electronic
display according to a configuration defined by the user during
runtime, such as by locating, assigning functions to, and/or
designing an appearance of the individual elements.
(Chermesino 131).
7. Chermesino teaches “[s]oft input devices ... are generally input
devices that are implemented in software and are the interface between the
computer functionality and typically a touch screen operable by the user. . . .
These interfaces may be configured as a keyboard” (Chermesino 12).
8. Chermesino teaches
a user-configurable soft input device for a computing device
comprising graphical data for displaying visual attributes of the
soft input device on a display of the computing device, position
data for controlling a position of the soft input device on the
display, wherein the position data is editable by a user during
runtime, and sizing data for defining a size of the visual
attributes of the soft input device, wherein the sizing data is
editable by the user during runtime.
(Chermesino 1 5).
9. Chermesino teaches “left-handed users may desire to move the
position of software keyboard 200 to better facilitate data entry for those
users. Allowing software keyboard 200 to be moved and customized by the
user at runtime, the ergonomics of the data entry may be increased”
(Chermesino 123).
8
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417.
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Ans. 2—8; FF 1—9) and agree that the
claims are rendered obvious by Choi, Hill, and Chermesino. We address
Appellants’ arguments below.
Claim 1
Appellants contend
Choi operates on the principle of allowing the user to touch any
area of the touch screen display otherwise the stated objective
of the Choi device could not be met. In this regard, if a user of
the Choi device could only interact with pre-defmed areas of
the display of the Choi device as claimed how would the Choi
device know which specific area of an icon is to be magnified
so that the desired features of that icon are made easily
accessible for a user?
(App. Br. 5). Appellants contend “because Choi does not disclose this
element as relied upon in rejecting the claims, it is respectfully submitted
that the combination of Choi, Hill, and Chermesino cannot be said to present
aprima facie case of obviousness” (App. Br. 6).
We do not find these arguments persuasive because Choi never
expressly identifies any principle requiring “any area”, but rather teaches
9
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
“upon touch of the icon by a user the icon is made larger or magnified” (FF
2). Thus, Choi teaches a specific area of interest is magnified, not any area
(FF 1-2). See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972) (“All the
disclosures in a reference must be evaluated . . . and a reference is not
limited to the disclosure of specific working examples.”)
We also agree with the Examiner that “modifying an area to be
designated to accept user input as taught by Chermesino with the teachings
of zooming a particular icon, as taught by Choi would have been obvious in
order to further allow for efficient interactivity” (Final Act. 3; cf. Ans. 9—
10). That is, it is the combination of Choi and Chermesino, along with Hill,
that renders the claims obvious, not Choi alone, and Chermesino suggests
“defining a size of the visual attributes of the soft input device” (FF 7). See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981):
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
Appellants contend that
one of skill in the art would not modify Choi to provide a “pre­
defined area” or an “allotted location” of a user interface to
receive motion based input to alter an interface characteristic
when the relied upon/cited to interface characteristic of
zooming is considered as any such modification to the Choi
system — as is being proposed in the Office Action— would
render the Choi system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose
(App. Br. 6).
10
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
We do not find this argument persuasive because Choi does not
identify any purpose other than to provide “a maximum number of icons on
the display yet the features of the icons are easily accessible by a user” (FF
1). We agree with the Examiner that modifying Choi’s “touch interface to
include specialized touch areas capable of generating commands as taught
by” Chermesino represents an obvious way to “better facilitate data entry for
those users. Allowing software keyboard 200 to be moved and customized
by the user at runtime, the ergonomics of the data entry may be increased”
(FF 9; see Ans. 6). Thus, modifying Choi to allow the keyboard to be placed
at a desired location does not reasonably render Choi unsatisfactory for any
purpose, much less the easy access desired by Choi (FF 1).
Appellants contend “it remains unclear why one of skill in the art
would be motivated to modify Choi to use ‘gesture based inputs’ instead of
‘touch based inputs’ when it is considered that Choi already implements a
passive touch system” (App. Br. 7).
We do not find this argument persuasive because Hill teaches that the
touch system provides enhanced functionality and specifically identifies the
gesture recognition system as an enhanced function (FF 4). Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner finding it obvious “to have modified Choi’s
interface to include Hill’s gesture motions in order to simplify user input”
(Ans. 5) because “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
11
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
Appellants contend that
While Chermesino may describe a method that a user may use
to place a keyboard into a user interface (OA; pg. 3), for
example to place the keyboard at a pre-defmed location within
the user interface that is shown in Figure 1A of Choi,
Chermesino does not describe that any area within the touch
screen display is pre-defmed and dedicated for use in accepting
motion based user input that is intended to indicate the desire
to modify the first interface characteristic of this user interface
as claimed.
(App. Br. 8).
We do not find this argument persuasive because the rejection does
not rely upon Chermesino alone, but upon the combination of Chermesino
and Choi. Choi teaches a desire for rendering icons on an interface more
easily accessible (FF 1) and Chermesino teaches both configuring the
interface as desired by a user (FF 9) and making “the sizing data is editable
by the user” (FF 8). Consistent with the Examiner’s position, the
combination of Choi and Chermesino render it obvious to configure an
interface to make sizing editable in a particular location because
“ergonomics of the data entry may be increased” (FF 9). Appellants do not
identify any secondary consideration that would render the combination
unobvious over the cited prior art.
Claim 4
Appellants contend
dependent claim 4 is allowable over the combination of Choi,
Hill, and Chermesino because the substance of the rejection is
based upon Hill disclosing a user interface characteristic “being
a particular direction to scroll” (OA; pg. 4) which, as noted
12
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
above, is neither the user interface characteristic relied upon in
Choi nor that which is specifically recited in claim 4.
(App. Br. 9).
We do not find this argument persuasive because claim 4 is drawn to
“the relative size of interface elements” where “the interface elements on the
touch screen display are relatively larger.” Thus, Chermesino, not Hill, is
relevant and Chermesino expressly teaches that “sizing data is editable by
the user”, rendering the relative size a routinely optimizable variable and the
choice of larger is particularly obvious in view of Choi’s teaching that an
“icon is made larger or magnified so that its functions can be accurately
touched” (FF 2). Thus, the ordinary artisan interested in selecting interface
element size would have reasonably selected larger elements for more
accurate touching and ease of use (see Ans. 7).
Claim 7
Appellants contend
dependent claim 7 is allowable over the combination of Choi,
Hill, and Chermesino because the substance of the rejection is
based upon Hill disclosing a user interface characteristic “being
a particular direction to scroll” (OA; pg. 4) which, as noted
above, is not the user interface characteristic which is
specifically recited in claim 7.
(App. Br. 10).
We do not find this argument persuasive because claim 7 is drawn to
“wherein the second interface characteristic comprises the relative number
of interface elements on the display.” The argument does not relate to any
limitation in claim 7, because the scroll direction is not recited in claim 7,
nor does this argument relate to the limitation of claim 7. To the extent that
13
Appeal 2015-004737
Application 12/969,132
Appellants are relying upon an argument regarding the combination of Hill
with Choi and Chermesino, we remain unpersuaded for the reasons already
given above.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination of Choi, Hill, and Chermesino renders the claims obvious.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Choi, Hill, and Chermesino. Claims 2,
3,5, and 6 fall with claims 1 and 4, respectively.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
14