Ex Parte Molducci et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

12064436 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/064,436 02/21/2008 Fabrizio Molducci
86378 7590 04/27/2016
Pearne & Gordon LLP
1801East9th Street
Suite 1200
Cleveland, OH 44114-3108
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.
GAMB-43339 9548
EXAMINER
HUR,ECE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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):
patdocket@pearne.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FABRIZIO MOLDUCCI, FABIO RON CAD I,
MATTEO MALAGOLI, and MICHEL ROYER
Appeal2014-004704
Application 12/064,436
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1, 5-34, 49, 53-59, 67, and 68, which are all pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-004704
Application 12/064,436
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to a user interface for a medical
apparatus. See Spec. 1:6-7. Claims 1, 49, 67, and 68 are independent.
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with additional formatting):
1. Medical apparatus comprising:
at least a user interface for enabling setting of a plurality
of parameters pertinent to operation of said apparatus or pertinent
to a process to be performed by said apparatus, the user interface
including at least a screen,
a control system for controlling operation of said medical
apparatus and responsive to actions by a user on said user
interface,
said control system being programmed for executing the
following steps:
defining on said screen an operating region, where
a number of working displays can be displayed, and a
navigation region, where a number of navigation keys can
be displayed,
organizing said navigation keys according to a
multi-level hierarchical structure where son-keys of a
specific navigation key are defined as keys hierarchically
one level below said specific key, and ancestor-keys of a
specific key are defined as keys hierarchically one or more
levels above the specific key;
associating to each of said number of navigation
keys a corresponding working display;
verifying selection of a navigation key;
displaying in said navigation region at least the
following keys:
the key selected by the user,
if present, one or more son-keys of the
selected key, and
if present, one or more ancestor-keys;
displaying, in the operating region, at least the
working display associated to the selected key,
2
Appeal2014-004704
Application 12/064,436
wherein the multi-level hierarchical structure also
provides for sibling keys of a specific navigation key, which are
defined as keys hierarchically at the same level of said specific
key, and
wherein during the key display step the control system is
programmed to hide any sibling keys of the selected key if the
selected key has at least one son-key, and to display any sibling
keys of the selected key if the selected key has no son-keys.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 5-13, 20-27, 29-32, 49, 53-55, 58-59, and 68 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crnkovich (US
6,775,577 B2; Aug. 10, 2004) and Lauff (US 2005/0080793 Al; Apr. 14,
2005). Final Act. 7.
Claims 14--16 and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crnkovich, Lauff, and Barksdale (US 2002/0154176 Al;
Oct. 24, 2002). Final Act. 25.
Claims 17-19; 28; and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Crnkovich, Lauff, and Oshiro (US 5,937,419; Aug.
10, 1999). Final Act. 27.
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crnkovich, Lauff, and Stemby (US 6, 726,64 7 B 1; Apr.
27, 2004). Final Act. 31.
Claim 67 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crnkovich, Lauff, Oshiro, and Aggarwal (US 5,781,906;
July 14, 1998). Final Act. 33.
3
Appeal2014-004704
Application 12/064,436
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We agree with the Examiner, and we adopt the Examiner's
findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-34, Ans. 2-6) as our own. We
address the following points for emphasis.
A. Crnkovich, Lau.ff, Barksdale, and Oshiro
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the cited combinations
of references teach or suggest the limitations of independent claims 1, 49,
68, and claims dependent thereon. See App. Br. 3-16. Particularly,
Appellants contend the combination of Crnkovich and Lauff is improper,
because "there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation disclosed in the prior
art" to modify the references as in Examiner's combination. App. Br. 4
(emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 1. Appellants present similar
arguments regarding the combination of Crnkovich, Lauff, and Barksdale
(see App. Br. 11) and the combination of Crnkovich, Lauff, and Oshiro (see
App. Br. 13). See Reply Br. 2.
Appellants further contend "the applied references clearly do not
teach or suggest the limitation[s] of claim 1 [or 49] that the control system is
programmed to display any sibling keys of the selected key if the selected
key has no son-keys" (App. Br. 5, 8), and that the combination of Crnkovich
and Lauff fails to teach or suggest the particular display limitations recited
by the claims depending thereon (see App. Br. 8-9). Appellants also
contend the combination of Crnkovich, Lauff, and Barksdale fails to teach or
suggest the display features recited in claims 14--16 and 56, and the
combination of Crnkovich, Lauff, and Barksdale fails to teach or suggest the
4
Appeal2014-004704
Application 12/064,436
display features recited in claims 17-19, 28 and 57. See App. Br. 11-15;
Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. "The obviousness analysis
cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching,
suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of
published articles and the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'! Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). The obviousness analysis also
"need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at
418. A reason to combine teachings from the prior art "may be found in
explicit or implicit teachings within the references themselves, from the
ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the
problem to be solved." WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'! Game Tech., 184 F.3d
1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner finds "Crnkovich discloses the claimed aspect of
[a] medical apparatus comprising: at least a user interface for enabling
setting of a plurality of parameters" including displaying navigation keys
such as "sibling keys of a specific navigation key" (Final Act. 7-8)
(emphasis omitted), and determines the claimed limitations are obvious and
well-known in the art, as evidenced by the combinations with Lauff,
Barksdale, and Oshiro. See Ans. 2--4.
We agree, as Crnkovich teaches a treatment display with different
screens showing a level of a hierarchy of access buttons, and Lauff teaches
the organization of user-interface accessible functions for a computer
program with different hierarchies (levels) of control elements (keys). See
5
Appeal2014-004704
Application 12/064,436
Crnkovich Fig. 2; Lauff Fig. 2. Lauff additionally teaches that certain
control elements may be modified to have different appearances from each
other and the display may be adjusted for any number of hierarchy levels
(see Lauff i-fi-129, 32). Barksdale teaches using colors to identify display
levels (see Barksdale i136 (Figure 3 "utilizes color to indicate a particular
items' level")) and Oshiro teaches keys can be "displayed in different shapes
corresponding to functions and hierarchical positions" (see Oshiro 11: 15-
25). See Final Act. 26, 28. We discern no non-obvious functional difference
between the claimed key display configurations and the key display
configurations of the prior art, keeping in mind that one of ordinary skill is
"a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-
21.
Particularly, the Examiner's combinations are reasonable, as the
references teach controlling display features based on a key's function, level,
or other relationship to selected keys or displays. See Final Act. 7-9, 26, 28.
Appellants, in contrast, have not persuasively shown the combination of
Crnkovich's control display for a medical system with Lauff's organized
navigational system was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior
art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007); see also Final Act. 8-9 (citing Crnkovich Fig. 2; Lauff Figs. lA-
2).1 We also agree with the Examiner that it would be obvious to change the
color or shapes of keys based on function and hierarchy levels as
1 Separately, we note Appellants have not provided any factual evidence of
secondary considerations, such as criticality, unexpected or unpredictable
results, commercial success, or long felt but unmet need.
6
Appeal2014-004704
Application 12/064,436
respectively taught by Barksdale and Oshiro, to further allow the user to
visually differentiate these features. Final Act. 26, 28 (citing Barksdale Fig.
3, Oshiro 11: 17-25).
For the above reasons, we find the Examiner has provided rational
underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding claims 1, 5-34, 49, 53-
59, and 68 are obvious in view of the cited art.
B. Design Choice
Regarding independent claim 68, Appellants further argue the
Examiner erred in finding the claimed key shapes, comprising particular
parallelograms, was a matter of design choice, because the claimed shapes
"provide enhanced functionality and safety to the device." App. Br. 11.
Appellants argue design choice is similarly inappropriate in the rejection of
claim 28. See App. Br. 14.
We agree with the Examiner, however, that
it would be [an] obvious design choice matter to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to have different shapes
to indicate selection, since such a modification would have
involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of
prior art ready for improvement.
Final Act. 24--25.
Appellants argue that the recited key shapes have benefits such as
ease of use, but do not provide sufficient evidence2 or reasoning to explain
2 See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of
what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument
and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie
case of obviousness"); see also In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA
1972) ("[M]ere lawyers' arguments unsupported by factual evidence are
insufficient to establish unexpected results.").
7
Appeal2014-004704
Application 12/064,436
how the claimed shapes provide unexpected results over key shapes known
in the prior art. See App. Br. 10; see also Crnkovich Fig. 2; LauffFigs lA-
lC; Oshiro Fig. 23. Nor do Appellants persuade us that the operation or
functionality of the keys (i.e., to activate a command) is different from the
prior art. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the particular shapes of the
various claimed keys are obvious matters of design choice. See e.g., In re
Rice, 341F.2d309, 314 (CCPA 1965) (the relevant issue is whether the
alleged differences between the claimed invention and the prior art "result in
a difference in function or give unexpected results"); see also In re Dailey,
357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 24 and 68.3
C. Aggarwal
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of claim 67 is in error, for
the same reasons provided for the rejection of claim 18. App. Br. 15.
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in citing to Aggarwal in the
rejection of claim 67, because "this reference is totally unrelated to the
presently claimed invention. Since Aggarwal has nothing to do with graphic
user interfaces or navigation keys on a user interface, it is not a properly
citable reference." App. Br. 15-16.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred, for the reasons discussed
above and for the further reasons provided herein. We agree with the
Examiner that Oshiro teaches "buttons can be displayed in different shapes
corresponding to functions and hierarchical positions." Final Act. 33-34
3 Additionally, the Examiner may wish to review the remaining independent
claims, to determine if the particularly recited displays are obvious matters
of design choice in view of the cited references.
8
Appeal2014-004704
Application 12/064,436
(citing Oshiro 11: 17-25). Moreover, "[w]hen a work is available in one
field, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or in another." KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. Here,
Aggarwal discloses structures for organizing data, and we conclude one of
skill in the art would use Aggarwal' s data structures with the other cited
reference's navigation structures. See Aggarwal Fig. 5, Lauff Fig. 2
(illustrating a hierarchical navigation structure).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Aggarwal is analogous
art, as Aggarwal presents different shapes to highlight differences in node
position, and is reasonably pertinent to the problem of displaying data. See
Ans. 6. That is, the cited block diagram of Aggarwal is presenting
information; an artisan of ordinary skill, after reading the reference, would
apply such teachings when creating displays and interfaces. See Aggarwal
Fig. 5; see also In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992); cf In re
Preda, 401F.2d825, 826 (CCPA 1968) ("[I]n considering the disclosure of
a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.").
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in finding claims 1,
5-13, 20-27, 29-32, 49, 53-55, 58-59, and 68 are obvious over Crnkovich
and Lauff; claims 14--16 and 56 are obvious over Crnkovich, Lauff, and
Barksdale; claims 17-19, 28, and 57 are obvious over Crnkovich, Lauff, and
Oshiro; and claim 67 is obvious over Crnkovich, Lauff, Oshiro, and
Aggarwal. Appellants advance no further argument on dependent claims 33
9
Appeal2014-004704
Application 12/064,436
and 34; thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the
same reasons discussed above. 4
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 5-34, 49, 53-59, 67, and 68
are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4 In the event of further prosecution, we suggest the Examiner consider
whether the claim limitations concerning the displayed characteristics of
keys of a graphical user interface bear a functional relationship to the
underlying substrate of the claims and, if not, whether they constitute non-
functional descriptive matter devoid of patentable weight. See, e.g., Ex
parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
The Examiner may also wish to review the claims for compliance with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), and the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618 (Dec. 16, 2014).
10