Ex Parte Wroblewski

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 2012

11505207 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FRANK J. WROBLEWSKI ____________ Appeal 2010-007101 Application 11/505,207 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8, 10-26, and 28-40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention provides hover-buttons associated with objects in a graphical user interface (GUI). When a cursor is moved over an object, Appeal 2010-007101 Application 11/505,207 2 the object is enlarged and associated buttons become visible. See generally Spec. ¶¶ 0038-39; Figs. 6-7A. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for interacting with primary and secondary user- selectable objects in a graphical user interface comprising the steps of: associating secondary user-selectable objects with primary user- selectable objects; displaying secondary user-selectable objects associated with a respective primary user-selectable object when said respective primary user- selectable object is selected; and focusing upon one of said secondary user-selectable objects when a cursor is proximate of said one of said secondary user-selectable objects, wherein only one of said secondary user-selectable objects can be enlarged at a time. THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-26, 28-35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by McCormack (US 2006/0156247 A1; July 13, 2006; filed Dec. 30, 2004). Ans. 4-11.1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 18, 36, and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McCormack and Kupka (US 7,164,410 B2; Jan. 16, 2007; filed July 28, 2003). Id. at 11-13. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION The Examiner finds that McCormack discloses every recited feature of claim 1 including focusing upon one of secondary user-selectable objects (i.e., floating action buttons) when a cursor is proximate to one secondary object, where only one such object can be enlarged at a time (i.e., when a 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed September 28, 2009 (App. Br.); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 30, 2009 (Ans.); and (3) the Reply Brief filed February 26, 2010 (Reply Br.). Appeal 2010-007101 Application 11/505,207 3 particular floating action button is specially activated in Figure 4). Ans. 4-5, 13-15. Appellant argues that McCormack does not focus upon one secondary user-selectable object when a cursor is proximate one of those objects, where only one such object can be enlarged at a time, as claimed. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 1-2. Appellant also argues various other recited limitations summarized below. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3-4. ISSUES Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that McCormack discloses: (1) focusing upon one of the secondary user-selectable objects when a cursor is proximate one of those objects, where only one such object can be enlarged at a time, as recited in claim 1? (2) displaying a sub-menu with tertiary user-selectable objects, where the sub-menu’s name is displayed over the primary user-selectable object, as recited in claim 37? (3) crossing (a) a first threshold on a GUI resulting in displaying secondary user-selectable objects, and (b) a second threshold on the GUI resulting in displaying a sub-menu associated with a closest one of the secondary objects, as recited in claim 12? ANALYSIS Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19-26, and 28-35 On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 which recites, in pertinent part, focusing Appeal 2010-007101 Application 11/505,207 4 upon one of secondary user-selectable objects when a cursor is proximate one of those objects, where only one such object can be enlarged at a time. As shown in McCormack’s Figure 2A, when the user’s pointer icon 208 (i.e., cursor) enters a “hover over zone” 210, one or more floating action buttons 212 (“secondary user-selectable objects”) are displayed proximate to the cursor. McCormack ¶¶ 0035-36; Fig. 2A. Automatically displaying a floating action button responsive to the cursor’s position, therefore, focuses upon one of these secondary user-selectable objects when the cursor is proximate the object. And when the user specially activates a displayed floating action button, that particular secondary object is enlarged by displaying its associated, larger context menu 404 shown in Figure 4 responsive to this special activation as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 15 (citing McCormack ¶ 0059; Fig. 4). Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 1-2) are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19-26, and 28-35 not separately argued with particularity. Claim 37 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 reciting, in pertinent part, displaying a sub-menu with tertiary user-selectable objects, where the sub-menu’s name is displayed over the primary user-selectable object. As the Examiner indicates, after selecting a secondary user- selectable object, McCormack displays a sub-menu (context menu 404) with tertiary user-selectable objects associated with the four listed options. Ans. Appeal 2010-007101 Application 11/505,207 5 11, 15 (citing McCormack ¶¶ 0059-60; Fig. 4). As shown in Figure 4, the sub-menu’s name (“OPTION #1” . . . “OPTION #4” and associated icons) is displayed at least partially over the primary user-selectable object, namely, partially over the hot zone and associated elements as shown in the enlarged partial detail view of McCormack’s context menu in Figure 4 below: Partial detail view of McCormack’s context menu in Figure 4 As shown in the region adjacent the context menu’s upper left corner, the menu is displayed partially over a “hot zone” 312 and its associated elements—a zone which reasonably corresponds to the primary user- selectable object according to the Examiner’s position. See Ans. 4 (referring to hover over zone 210 in connection with the primary user-selectable object); see also Ans. 5, 11 (same in connection with claims 2-5 and 18). Accordingly, McCormack’s context menu fully meets the recited sub-menu in claim 37. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 37. Appeal 2010-007101 Application 11/505,207 6 Claim 12 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 reciting crossing (1) a first threshold on a GUI resulting in displaying secondary user- selectable objects, and (2) a second threshold on the GUI resulting in displaying a sub-menu associated with a closest one of the secondary objects. As the Examiner indicates, when the user’s cursor enters a hover over zone 210, it crosses a first graphical threshold on the interface and displays floating action buttons responsive to that crossing. Ans. 7 (citing McCormack ¶ 0047; Fig. 3A). And when the user’s cursor enters the graphical region associated with a particular floating action button to specially activate it, the cursor then crosses a second graphical threshold on the interface that delineates that button’s activation region. See id. (citing McCormack ¶¶ 0058-59; Fig. 4). Although the user must click a special mouse button or press a key simultaneously with the mouse button to specially activate the selected floating action button, nothing in the claim precludes these manual steps from occurring after the cursor crosses the second graphical threshold on the interface to select the button. Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4) are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION Regarding claim 18, the Examiner finds that McCormack’s primary user-selectable object (hover over zone) is selected when the cursor hovers over that object, but that McCormack is silent regarding hovering for a Appeal 2010-007101 Application 11/505,207 7 predetermined time period. Ans. 11. The Examiner, however, cites Kupka as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Id. at 12, 16-17. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Kupka is misplaced because not only does Kupka require some selection action to change a time associated with the user-selectable object, Kupka is not interested in the recited range in claim 39. App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 4. ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that McCormack and Kupka collectively would have taught or suggested: (1) selecting a primary user-selectable object when a cursor hovers over that object for a predetermined amount of time, as recited in claim 18? (2) selecting a secondary user-selectable object when a cursor hovers over that object for a predetermined amount of time within a range of 100ms to 1000ms, as recited in claim 39? ANALYSIS Claims 18, 36, 38, and 40 We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 18 reciting selecting a primary user-selectable object when a cursor hovers over that object for a predetermined time period. The Examiner cites Kupka merely to show that automatically performing some sort of action responsive to a cursor hovering over an object for a predetermined time period is known in the art, and that applying this fundamental teaching to McCormack would have been obvious. Ans. 11-12, 16-17. We find no error in this position, for Appeal 2010-007101 Application 11/505,207 8 Kupka teaches that time period adjustment is repeated if the user holds a stylus or pointing device in position in input field zone 103A—a repetition that is accelerated if the user continues to hold the pointing device for a predetermined time period. Kupka, col. 20, l. 60 – col. 21, l. 6; Figs. 7A-7B. The clear import of this discussion is that positioning a pointing device in a region associated with an object for a predetermined time period not only selects that object, but also performs certain associated functions that are responsive to the amount of time the pointing device is maintained in the object’s associated region. Applying this technique to McCormack to select an associated object after a cursor hovers over the object for a predetermined time, as the Examiner proposes, merely predictably uses prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). And where, as here, if a technique has been used to improve one device (performing certain functions responsive to the amount of time a pointing device is maintained in an associated object’s region), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (selecting an associated object after a cursor hovers over the object for a predetermined time), using the technique is obvious, unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. See id. We are, therefore, not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18, and claims 36, 38, and 40 not separately argued with particularity. Claim 39 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 39 (which depends from claim 38) reciting selecting a secondary user-selectable object when a Appeal 2010-007101 Application 11/505,207 9 cursor hovers over that object for a predetermined amount of time within a range of 100ms to 1000ms. We emphasize “secondary” here, for claim 39 differs from a similar limitation in claim 18 discussed above which recites selecting a primary user-selectable object after hovering over that object for a predetermined time period. Nevertheless, Appellant’s argument does not pertain to this distinction, but rather to the particular recited time range which is said to be non-obvious over McCormack and Kupka. App. Br. 12- 13; Reply Br. 4. Although the Examiner’s finding that a 2 to 3 second time period of inactivity as “well within” the recited range (Ans. 17) is puzzling since the recited range is from 0.1 to 1 second, we nonetheless find no harmful error in the Examiner’s position that the recited time range would have nevertheless been obvious. Ans. 12, 17. Although Kupka does not specify a specific time period for the disclosed predetermined time period noted above, we nonetheless see no reason why the particular range recited would not have been an engineering design choice well within the level of ordinarily skilled artisans and, therefore, an obvious enhancement, particularly since no criticality has been shown for that range. We are, therefore, not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 39. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-26, 28- 35, and 37 under § 102, and (2) claims 18, 36, and 38-40 under § 103. Appeal 2010-007101 Application 11/505,207 10 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-26, and 28-40 is 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED babc