Ex Parte Zheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 2016

13213210 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

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. 13/213,210 08/19/2011 Xianjun S. Zheng 2010P21066US01 7834 28524 7590 01/04/2017 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 EXAMINER MOON, SEOKYUN Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2694 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): ipdadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XIANJUN S. ZHENG, JOERI KIEKEBOSCH, JENG-WEEI JAMES LIN, and STUART GOOSE1 Appeal 2016-000486 Application 13/213,210 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify Siemens Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-000486 Application 13/213,210 Invention Appellants disclose a “specially-configured interactive user interface for use in eye typing takes the form of a three-layer arrangement that allows for controlling computer input with eye gazes.” Abstract. Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is representati ve: 1. An eye typing system comprising an eye tracking device for monitoring the movements of an eye, including gaze, fixation and saccade; a computer monitor-based display apparatus including a graphical user interface (GUI) in the form of an on-screen keyboard configured as a three-layer arrangement comprising an outer ring of alphabet characters, an inner ring of frequently-used words and a central region text box for displaying a document being created by eye typing, including all typed characters as they are selected; and a computer processor responsive to the eye tracking device for analyzing eye gaze and fixation data and determining which key of the on-screen keyboard user interface an individual has selected by eye movement, the letter or word associated with the selected key being displayed in the central region text box in the creation of an eye-typed document. References and Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garwin et al. (US 4,595,990; June 17, 1986), Millington (US 2008/0201662 Al; Aug. 21, 2008), Gruen et al. (US 8,146,003 B2; Mar. 27, 2012), and Frisbee (US 2010/0141609 Al; June 10, 2010). Final Act. 3—8. 2 Appeal 2016-000486 Application 13/213,210 The Examiner rejects claims 3—5 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garwin, Millington, Gruen, Frisbee, and Gunn et al. (US 2005/0210402 Al; Sept. 22, 2005). Final Act. 8-10. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garwin, Millington, Gruen, Frisbee, and Basson et al. (US 2005/0251746 Al; Nov. 10, 2005). Final Act. 10. The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garwin, Millington, Gruen, Frisbee, and Meijer et al. (US 2009/0102805 Al; Apr. 23, 2009). Final Act. 11. The Examiner rejects claims 12—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garwin, Millington, Gruen, Frisbee, and Comerford et al. (US 5,963,671; Oct. 5, 1999). Final Act. 11-12. The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garwin, Millington, Gruen, Frisbee, and Wong et al. (US 2008/0139227 Al; June 12, 2008). Final Act. 13-14. The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garwin, Millington, Gruen, Frisbee, and Forest (US 6,005,549; Dec. 21, 1999). Final Act. 1^U15, ANAFYSIS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (directed to an eye typing system having a particular graphical user interface), the Examiner 3 Appeal 2016-000486 Application 13/213,210 relies on teachings and suggestions found in Garwin (eye controlled information transfer), Millington (methods for controlling a navigation system), Gruen (efficient text input for game controllers and handheld devices), and Frisbee (ergonomic user interface and electronic devices incorporating same). Final Act. 3—5. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Millington, Gruen, and Frisbee are neither from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention nor reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by Appellants. App. Br. 8—10. In particular, Appellants argue that the claimed invention’s field of endeavor is limited to eye-typing systems. Id.', see also Reply Br. 5—6. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because, as the Examiner correctly finds, the invention’s field of endeavor is broader than Appellants argue. Ans. 16. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed invention is within the field of displaying and controlling a graphical user interface. Id. Appellants argue that claim 1 and the Specification limit the field of endeavor to prior art related to eye typing systems. Reply Br. 5—6. However, the Specification describes eye typing systems as being an improvement in traditional input methods (e.g., moving a mouse or joystick) for certain users. Spec. 13. The Specification also illustrates that eye typing systems draw on input technologies (e.g., the QWERTY keyboard layout) from a broad field of endeavor. Id. 1 6. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that the breadth of the invention’s field of endeavor encompasses displaying and controlling a graphical user interface is reasonable. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Millington, Gruen, and Frisbee are within the field of endeavor of displaying and controlling a 4 Appeal 2016-000486 Application 13/213,210 graphical user interface. Ans. 16—18. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Millington, Graen, and Frisbee are all analogous art. Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to rely on the teachings and suggestions of Millington is erroneous because Garwin “already includes a more appropriate means for allowing a user to see a selection (e.g., the selected region lights up . . .)” and thus Millington would not have been needed to allow the device-user to see a current user selected character. App. Br. 8. The Examiner maintains Millington’s method of providing visual feedback would have been more effective than Garwin’s method. Ans. 16. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that Millington’s use of a central display region to display a selected element would be more effective than Garwin’s region lighting. Moreover, Garwin teaches that visual feedback upon detection of the user’s fixation on a cell can include “changing the intensity of the target word on a CRT display, . . . flashing an indicator lamp next to the target on a fixed indicator board, etc.” Garwin col. 11,11. 62—64. Thus, an artisan of ordinary skill would have understood that alternative approaches to identifying a selected character (e.g., Millington’s use of a central display region) could be substituted for Garwin’s open-ended visual feedback teachings. Therefore, we do not find error with the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings and suggestions of Millington in combination with Garwin and the other relied upon references. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 20, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 7—10. Appellants rely on the same arguments with 5 Appeal 2016-000486 Application 13/213,210 respect to the remaining claims. Id. at 10. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 3—5, 8, and 10-19. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6