Ex Parte Capps et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 23, 2003

08866402 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 23, 2003)

1 Application for patent filed May 30, 1997, entitled
"Touch Sensitive Apparatus and Method for Improved Visual
Feedback."
- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER L. CAPPS,
SCOTT M. HALLIHAN,
BRENDA M. SCOTT,
and GAYLE STEINBUGLER

Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,4021

ON BRIEF

Before BARRETT, FLEMING, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the final rejection of claims 20-34.
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 2 -
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a system, method, and computer
instructions on a computer usable medium for visually indicating
that a key on a display screen has been selected. Although the
invention is disclosed in connection with a touch screen display,
only one claim requires this feature. When a key is selected,
the size of the key on the screen enlarges or "splats" and the
appearance changes to indicate a depressed key, e.g., by
decreasing the size of the bevels of the key graphic.
Claim 20 is reproduced below.
20. In a system having a processor, a display for producing
a visual representation of a plurality of keys, a position
sensing subsystem for providing signals indicating that an
area on the display has been selected by an operator and a
memory for storing programming instructions for controlling
the operation of the system, an apparatus for providing
improved visual feedback to the operator that an area in the
visual representation has been selected, said apparatus
comprising:
(a) a circuit responsive to signals provided by said the
position sensing subsystem to provide an key-identifying
signal indicating that a particular key in the visual
representation of said plurality of keys has been selected
by the operator; and
(b) display control logic responsive to the key-identifying
signal to alter the visual representation of the selected
key by enlarging said the visual representation and by
changing said visual representation to have the appearance
of a depressed key, said altered visual representation
providing visual confirmation of the key selection.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Greanias et al. (Greanias) 4,686,332 August 11, 1987
Volk et al. (Volk) 5,687,331 November 11, 1997
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 3 -
(filed August 3, 1995)
Claims 20-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Volk and Greanias.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 15) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 18)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 17) (pages referred
to as "Br__") for a statement of appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Obviousness factual findings
Content of the prior art
Volk discloses a viewer interface for use in an interactive
television environment, but which can be used with computer
software (col. 12, line 60 to col. 13, line 6). Control items on
the screen, such as control buttons or icons for "open" and
"close" functions, are selected by a user who typically navigates
a cursor with a keyboard or mouse, and selects the control item
by a keyboard stroke or a mouse click (col. 4, lines 9-16). A
selected control item responsive to input is said to have the
"focus" (col. 4, lines 26-27) and is indicated by a focus item.
"[T]he display of a control item that has the focus is typically
altered, for example by highlighting the display of the item or
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 4 -
surrounding the selected control item by a border to indicate to
the viewer that the selected control item has the focus."
Col. 4, lines 27-31. For example, a focus ring 105 surrounds the
perimeter of control item 102 in Fig. 3A (col. 20, lines 22-24;
col. 27, lines 29-32). It can be seen that the focus ring
enlarges the visual representation of the control item. Standard
focus items include rings, arrows, and pointing fingers (col. 27,
line 38). Volk also discloses a button control object 810 in
Fig. 8A that executes a single action (col. 28, lines 51-53),
having an activated and deactivated modal state, where the visual
representation is changed to have the appearance of a depressed
(pushed) key when the key is pressed. The invention of Volk is a
system for highlighting the currently selected control item by
associating an animated "focus item," called a "sprite," with the
selected control item to indicate that it is in a state
responsive to commands from a user interface (abstract; col. 12,
lines 29-31). Volk teaches using multiple focus items in
discussing animated focus items, such as varying the size, shape,
position, color, moving images, video, sound "or a combination of
these elements" (abstract).
Greanias discloses a combined finger touch and stylus
detection system for use on the viewing surface of a visual
display system (abstract).
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 5 -
Level of ordinary skill in the art
The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the
references. See In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210,
214 (CCPA 1978) ("the PTO usually must evaluate both the scope
and content of the prior art and the level of ordinary skill
solely on the cold words of the literature"); In re GPAC Inc.,
57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (the
Board did not err in adopting the approach that the level of
skill in the art was best determined by the references of
record); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355,
59 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("[T]he absence of specific
findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to
reversible error 'where the prior art itself reflects an
appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.'"). One
of ordinary skill in the art must be presumed to know something
about the art apart from what the references expressly disclose.
See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA
1962). See also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771,
774 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill in the art must be presumed).
Differences and motivation
The differences and the motivation will be discussed in
connection with each claim.
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 6 -
Obviousness
Initially, it is noted that only claim 24 recites a touch
screen display, so Greanias is only relevant to claim 24. The
"position sensing subsystem for providing signals indicating that
an area on the display has been selected by an operator" in
claims 20, 26, and 31 reads on the ordinary computer subsystem
for sensing the position of a cursor or pointer which is clearly
present in Volk. The analysis is limited to Volk except for the
rejection of claim 24.
Claim 20
The argued differences are altering the visual
representation of the selected key "by enlarging said the visual
representation and by changing said visual representation to have
the appearance of a depressed key."
Appellants argue that the examiner relies on a general
language in Volk suggesting that a programmer can enable any
change of appearance that the programmer chooses, but this does
not teach the precise changes in display that are claimed
(Br10-11). We agree that the rejection, as stated, seems to rely
on general language in Volk and is not persuasive for that
reason. Nevertheless, Volk does have specific relevant teachings
which cannot be ignored. For example, the examiner did refer to
Fig. 8A in the rejection (Paper No. 13) and the final rejection
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
2 As admitted by appellants in their description of the
prior art, it was well known to enlarge the visual representation
of an item on a touch screen, as taught in U.S. Patent 5,119,079
to Hube et al.
3 It was well known to visually indicate a selected key by
displaying a depressed key. For example, the calculator
accessory in Windows NT (introduced in 1994) changes the visual
representation of a key on keypad to indicate a depressed key and
the exit/minimize/maximize buttons on the upper right hand corner
of the windows in Windows NT are shown depressed when selected.
Similarly, in WordPerfect 6.1 (issued in 1995), which is being
used to write this opinion, the buttons on the toolbar and
powerbar are displayed as depressed when selected.
- 7 -
(Paper No. 15), although there is no express discussion that it
showed a depressed key.
Volk discloses a visual representation of plurality of keys,
where control buttons 102, 103 in Fig. 3A are equivalent to
"keys." Volk discloses enlarging the visual representation of
the selected button (key) by putting a focus ring 105 around the
control items (Fig. 3A; col. 20, lines 2-24). Appellants do not
contest that Volk shows enlarging the visual representation. 2
Appellants argue that "the characteristic of displaying a
depressed key is not found [in Volk]" (Br10). However, Volk
discloses that the selected button (key) can be indicated by
having the appearance of a depressed key (Fig. 8A). 3 Appellants
do not address this teaching of Volk.
Thus, we find that Volk separately teaches enlarging the
visual representation and displaying a depressed key. Volk
teaches using multiple focus items in combination, such as
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 8 -
varying the size, shape, position, color, moving images, video,
sound "or a combination of these elements" (abstract; col. 10,
lines 38-39). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to use multiple known ways of indicating a selected key
in combination, such as the enlarging the representation and
giving the appearance of a depressed key, in view of this
teaching of Volk, to enhance the visual representation of a
selected key. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 20.
Claim 21
Claim 21 calls for enlarging and changing the visual
representation of the key occur substantially simultaneously.
The examiner finds that Volk teaches that an animation can
have a combination of visual and audible representations (FR3).
Appellants argue that the art does not teach the further
distinction of simultaneity and "[t]his point appears to have
been outside the Examiner's understanding" (Br11).
It is true that the examiner does not appear to appreciate
that a combination of effects does not necessarily mean that they
are performed "simultaneously." Nevertheless, we think the
disclosure of a combination of effects in Volk would have
reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
effects should be performed simultaneously since each effect is
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 9 -
supposed to indicate the same event of providing focus. Thus, we
will sustain the rejection of claim 21.
Claim 22
Claim 22 calls for also changing the coloration of the
visual representation.
The examiner notes that Volk teaches that the appearance of
control objects may be altered by changing the background colors
(FR3).
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion of three
changes in a display (Br11).
Volk teaches using multiple focus items in combination, such
as varying the size, shape, position, color, moving images,
video, sound "or a combination of these elements" (abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use
multiple known ways of indicating a selected key in combination,
such as the enlarging the representation and giving the
appearance of a depressed key and using a color change, in view
of this teaching of Volk, to enhance the visual representation of
a selected key. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 22.
Claims 23 and 25
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 10 -
Claim 23 recites that two types of key identifying signals
are provided to distinguish between which portion of a key area
has been touched.
We do not find where the examiner addresses this limitation.
We have reviewed Volk and find no teaching or suggestion of this
limitation. That fact that Volk could be modified to produce the
claimed subject matter still requires a suggestion or motivation.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("The mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make
the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification.")(citing In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The
rejection of claim 23, and its dependent claim 25, is reversed.
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites that the position sensing subsystem
comprises a touch sensitive overlay on the display.
The examiner has applied Greanias to show a touch sensitive
overlay (FR3).
Appellants argue that the distinction remains unaddressed by
the examiner (Br12).
The examiner has clearly addressed the touch sensitive
overlay using the Greanias patent, albeit in connection with
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 11 -
claim 20 which does not require this limitation. It would have
been obvious to use a touch sensitive overlay in Volk because it
was a well known substitute for a mouse pointing system. The
rejection of claim 24 is sustained.
Claim 26
The method of claim 26 would have been obvious for the
reasons stated in connection with system claim 20. The rejection
of claim 26 is sustained.
Claim 27
The method of claim 27 would have been obvious for the
reasons stated in connection with system claim 21. The rejection
of claim 27 is sustained.
Claim 28
The method of claim 28 would have been obvious for the
reasons stated in connection with system claim 22. The rejection
of claim 28 is sustained.
Claims 29 and 30
The method of claim 29 would not have been obvious for the
reasons stated in connection with system claim 23. There is no
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 12 -
teaching in Volk of separately sensing the upper and lower
portions of the visual representation of the selected key, even
though claim 29 is not specific as to exactly what happens when
the upper and lower portions are sensed. The rejection of
claim 29, and its dependent claim 30, is reversed.
Claim 31
The computer usable medium storing programming instructions
of claim 31 would have been obvious for the reasons stated in
connection with system claim 20. The rejection of claim 31 is
sustained.
Claim 32
The computer usable medium storing programming instructions
of claim 32 would have been obvious for the reasons stated in
connection with system claim 22. The rejection of claim 32 is
sustained.
Claims 33 and 34
The computer usable medium storing programming instructions
of claims 33 and 34 would not have been obvious for the reasons
stated in connection with system claim 23. There is no teaching
in Volk of separately sensing the upper and lower portions of the
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 13 -
visual representation of the selected key. The rejection of
claims 33 and 34 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 14 -
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 20-22, 24, 26-28, 31, and 32 is
sustained. The rejection of claims 23, 25, 29, 30, 33, and 34 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
- 15 -
IBM CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 12195
DEPT 9CCA, BLDG 002
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709