Ex Parte Bell et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201813724356 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/724,356 12/21/2012 77212 7590 06/04/2018 Cantor Colburn LLP - IBM Endicott 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David Bell 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. GB920110118US 1 2373 EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID BELL and PHILIP NOR TON Appeal2016-006214 1 Application 13/724,356 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL W. KIM, RAMA G. ELLURU, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10-16, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The claimed invention relates to computer interfaces, specifically to techniques relating to the operation of user interfaces. Spec. ,r 2. The claimed invention aims to improve a user's interaction with a user interface, by detecting the user's sequence of actions with respect to the user interface, 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2016-006214 Application 13/724,356 to predict future actions of the user, and ultimately allowing the user to reach an anticipated end result more quickly or more easily. Id. ,r,r 15, 22, 27, 29. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with certain limitations emphasized: 1. A method of operating a user interface, comprising: detecting a sequence of actions performed by a user with the user interface; accessing a database having a plurality of pattern keys, wherein each of the pattern keys define a sequence of actions with the user interface and a specific end result, which is a predicted action that the user will take with the user interface after completing the sequence of actions; matching the detected sequence of actions with the user interface to one of the pattern keys in the database; and based on matching the detected sequence to one of the pattern keys, automatically executing the specific end result of a particular pattern key being matched. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Ahya et al. (US 2006/0107219 Al, published May 18, 2006) ("Ahya"), Kay et al. (US 2010/0122164 Al, published May 13, 2010) ("Kay"), and Mitchell et al. (WO 2009/142624 Al, published Nov. 26, 2009) ("Mitchell"). 2 We AFFIRM. 2 Page 4 of the Final Rejection states that claims "1-20" are rejected as being unpatentable over Ahya in view of "Evans (US 2008/0034128 Al)" (as opposed to Kay) and Mitchell. We treat these as inadvertent typographical errors. Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, and 18 are cancelled. App. Br. 8-10. Furthermore, the body of the rejection indicates that claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10-16, 19, and 20 are rejected as unpatentable over Ahya in view of Kay and Mitchell, and does not substantively cite to any portion of Evans. Final Act. 2-10. 2 Appeal2016-006214 Application 13/724,356 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites "a specific end result, which is a predicted action that the user will take with the user interface after completing the sequence of actions" and "automatically executing the specific end result of a particular pattern key being matched." The Examiner asserts that this is met by Mitchell's disclosure of displaying file B on the user interface when the user accesses file A, where the displaying of file B is based on a stored pattern used to predict that the user intends to access file B whenever the user accesses file A. Ans. 3 ( citing Mitchell ,r 57). The Appellants disagree, asserting that this disclosure of Mitchell only "teaches modifying the user interface to place a link or shortcut to launch or perform the next anticipated action," whereas "the claimed invention goes a step further and automatically executes the next anticipated action" ( emphases omitted). App. Br. 5. We agree with the Examiner. Paragraph 57 of Mitchell discloses that a user interface modifier "recognizes this pattern of user interaction attributes related to device 115A and modifies user interface 225A accordingly. Thus, the next time that user 1 IOA opens file A,file B also appears on user interface 225A" (emphasis added). We find that Mitchell's use of the words "also" and "appears" is an express disclosure of automatically executing the predicted action of displaying file B itself, as opposed to merely modifying the user interface to include a shortcut or link for the user to execute the action, as the Appellants argue. Indeed, the Appellants do not identify any portion of Mitchell in support of their assertion. Insofar as the Appellants are referring to the shortcut or link referred to in paragraph 56 of Mitchell, we find that is a different 3 Appeal2016-006214 Application 13/724,356 embodiment that does not affect our reading of the above-referenced portion of Mitchell because, among other reasons, it refers to file C. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 as obvious over Ahya in view of Kay and Mitchell. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 7 and 16, and dependent claims 4, 6, 10-15, 19, and 20, which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 6-7. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10-16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation