Ex Parte Mikkola et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

14152082 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/152,082 01/10/2014
69316 7590 12/03/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Petteri Mikkola
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
340457-US-NP 9783
EXAMINER
CASTIAUX, BRENT D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETTER! MIKKOLA and DAN HWANG
Appeal2018-003246
Application 14/152,082 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--21. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing,
LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003246
Application 14/152,082
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to
methods and apparatus for "producing a heads-up interaction where a user
keeps their attention on a secondary display ( e,g., television) while using a
hover-sensitive device ( e.g., phone, tablet) as a controller for an application
whose output is being displayed on the secondary display.". Spec. ,r 4.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling a first device having a hover-
sensitive and touch-sensitive display, comprising:
detecting a second device having a second display;
controlling the first device to establish a communication
link between the first device and the second device;
controlling the first device to establish a context for an
interaction between the first device and the second device,
wherein establishing the context comprises selecting a plurality
of applications for which the first device is to provide content to
the second device;
controlling the first device to provide a first output to be
displayed on the second display, where the first output is
associated with content from an application associated with the
first device; and
in response to identifying a hover point produced in a
hover space associated with the first device, controlling the first
device to provide a second output to be displayed on the second
display, where the second output is based, at least in part, on the
context and on a hover action associated with the hover point,
and where the second output is a cursor and not content from the
application associated with the first device, wherein a size, a
type, and a shape of the cursor are identified based on a type of
the application associated with the first device.
App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-003246
Application 14/152,082
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tsai
Raeber
Yoo
Bao
US 2010/0174421 Al Jul. 8, 2010
US 2012/0274547 Al Nov. 1, 2012
US 2013/0244730 Al Sep. 19, 2013
US 2014/0002398 Al Jan. 2, 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Raeber, Yoo, and
Tsai. Final Act. 3-24.
Claims 6, 7, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Raeber, Yoo, Tsai, and Bao.
Final Act. 24-28.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Raeber and Tsai teaches or suggests "wherein the second output is a cursor .
. . wherein a size, a type, and a shape of the cursor are identified based on a
type of the application associated with the first device," as recited in
claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Raeber and Tsai teaches or suggests a "third device ... providing an
additional output comprising a second cursor," as recited in dependent
claim 11?
3
Appeal2018-003246
Application 14/152,082
ANALYSIS
First Issue
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Raeber teaches most of
the limitations, but is deficient with respect to the "controlling the first
device" limitation and certain aspects of the "in response to identifying a
hover point" limitation. Final Act. 3-5. Relevant here, the Examiner finds
Raeber teaches the "in response to identifying a hover point" limitation of
claim 1 with the exception of the recited "second output" being "a cursor"
and "wherein a size, a type, and a shape of the cursor are identified based on
a type of the application associated with the first device." Final Act. 5. The
Examiner turns to Tsai, finding that it "teaches a user interface for a mobile
device wherein the second output is a cursor" and "wherein a size, a type,
and a shape of the cursor are identified based on a type of the application
associated with the first device." Final Act. 7 (citing Tsai ,r 57). The
Examiner concludes "it would have been obvious ... to modify Raeber's
finder representation to include Tsai' s application specific cursor because
such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element
for another producing a predictable result." Final Act. 8.
Appellants contend "Tsai does not describe providing a cursor to a
second device, wherein the cursor is based on an application associated with
a different first device. In fact, Tsai is only directed to single mobile device
that generates a display based on a position of the mobile device in real
space." App. Br. 12-13. According to Appellants, "Tsai actually describes
providing a mobile user interface on a mobile computing device, which
includes sensing a movement in real space or an environment for the mobile
computing device" and using "visual cues ... to help users position a mobile
4
Appeal2018-003246
Application 14/152,082
computing device." App. Br. 12 (citing Tsai ,r,r 4, 56); see also Reply Br. 2
("the visual cures of Tsai are dependent upon an application executed by the
device displaying the visual cues").
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants argue
Tsai is deficient because it does not describe providing a cursor to a second
device based on an application associated with a different first device.
However, this argument does not address the findings made by the
Examiner. The Examiner relies on Tsai to show that it was known in the art
to change the size, type and shape of a cursor based on the application being
used. The Examiner does not rely on Tsai to show the interaction and
handling of output between the two separate devices. Rather, the Examiner
cites Raeber' s Figure 3 and paragraph 52 as teaching a "second output ...
based on a type of the application associated with the first device." Ans. 4
("Raeber [ ] teach[ es] this limitation as it describes the two devices where
one device detects a hover gesture of a thumb and places a representation of
the thumb on the other device.").
As correctly explained by the Examiner, Raeber's deficiency is that it
does not teach that "a size, a type, and a shape of the cursor are identified"
based on the type of application running. Id. The Examiner cites Tsai only
to show that it was known to modify the size, type, and shape of a cursor
based on the type of application. We agree with the Examiner that Tsai
provides this teaching. See Tsai ,r 57 ("the type, shape, and size of the
implied cursor ... may be defined by the application running on the mobile
computing device"). Accordingly we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in concluding claim 1 is obvious over the cited references, and, and we
sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Appeal2018-003246
Application 14/152,082
Second Issue
Appellants argue separately for patentability of claim 11. Claim 11
depends from claim 1 and recites the following additional limitation:
in response to identifying an additional hover point produced in
an additional hover space associated with a third device, the third
device having a hovers-sensitive and touch-sensitive interface,
providing an additional output comprising a second cursor to be
displayed on the second display, where the additional output is
based, at least in part, on the context and on an additional hover
action associated with the additional hover point.
App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting claim 11, the Examiner finds
Raeber teaches the recited limitation because "it allows for multiple hover
representations to be transmitted and displayed on the display device."
Ans. 5 ( citing Raeber ,r 43).
Appellants argue "Raeber, Yoo, and Tsai, either alone, or in any sort
of hypothetical combination, fail to describe the second cursor from a third
device of claim 11." App. Br. 14. Appellants note that the exemplary
embodiment relating to claim 11 describes a scenario in which two cursors
from different devices are displayed on shared display:
For example, two gamers may be playing a football game. A
first gamer may have a first cursor associated with their team in
one color and a second gamer may have a second cursor
associated with their team in another color. Both cursors may be
displayed on a shared game display where the football game is
being displayed.
App. Br. 14 ( quoting Spec. ,r 52).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, claim 11 imposes no requirement that two cursors
6
Appeal2018-003246
Application 14/152,082
be simultaneously displayed as described in the "shared game display"
example of Appellants' Specification. Rather, the language of claim 11
requires only that at some point in time, a third device output a cursor to the
display. We agree with the Examiner that Raeber renders obvious claim 11
under its broadest reasonable interpretation because it teaches that two
different devices can interact with the graphical user interface on the display.
Raeber ,r 43 ("enable another device to update a device on which a GUI is
displayed accordingly"). Moreover, we note that under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, claim 11 merely recites having an additional
device interact with the display in exactly the same manner as the first
device. Our reviewing court has held a claim that "simply recites repetition
of a known procedure until success is achieved," is not nonobvious where
the repetition is the only difference between the claim and the prior art.
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir.
2009). Here, the mere addition of another device amounts to little more than
"repetition of a known procedure," and consequently is not sufficient to
overcome the rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not separately argue for patentability of the remaining
claims. Consequently, we also sustain those rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--21.
7
Appeal2018-003246
Application 14/152,082
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8