Ex Parte De Brebisson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2016

12996734 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/996,734 12/07/2010
15757 7590 02/03/2016
Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
2200 Ross A venue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cyrille De Brebisson
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.
82236614 1599
EXAMINER
MCDOWELL, JR, MAURICE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2016 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CYRILLE DE BREBISSON
Appeal2014-001504
Application 12/996,734
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-001504
Application 12/996,734
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to generating and displaying a
pointer on a display screen. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating and displaying a pointer on a display screen,
the pointer having a selection area defined by multiple pixels
including an array of two-by-two pixels that are adjacent to
each other and intersect at a common point, where the common
point is a point of intersection of the array of two-by-two
pixels, and where the point of intersection provides a
dimensionless selection point of the pointer; and
in response to a selection event, determining a location of
the common point of the pointer on the display screen and
returning a value from a graphical object on which the pointer
is displayed, where the value is determined from the location of
the common point of the pointer.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thornton (US 5,870,319, issued Feb. 9,
1999), Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), and Benzschawel (US
5,341,153, issued Aug. 23, 1994). (Final Act. 2-15.)
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thornton, Applicant's Admitted Prior Art, Benzschawel,
and Elliott (US 6,903,754 B2, issued June 7, 2005). (Final Act. 15-17.)
2
Appeal2014-001504
Application 12/996,734
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
Whether the combination of Thornton, Applicant's Admitted Prior
Art, and Benzschawel teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitation,
the pointer having a selection area defined by multiple pixels
including an array of two-by-two pixels that are adjacent to
each other and intersect at a common point, where the common
point is a point of intersection of the array of two-by-two
pixels, and where the point of intersection provides a
dimensionless selection point of the pointer,
and the similar limitations recited in independent claims 7 and 13. (App. Br.
9-11, 13-14.)
ANALYSIS
For the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure
in Thornton of a crosshair cursor that permits users to trace a graph and
select data on the graph, together with the description in the Specification of
prior art crosshairs formed by pixels of a given two-dimensional area, and
also on the disclosure in Benzschawel of pixels formed from subpixels.
(Final Act. 3-5; Thornton Fig. 3, col. 5, 11. 30-31; Spec. i-f 3; Benzschawel
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 13, 2013); the Reply
Brief (filed Nov. 19, 2013); the Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 18, 2013);
and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Sept. 20, 2013) for the respective
details.
3
Appeal2014-001504
Application 12/996,734
col. 4, 11. 14--15.) The Examiner defines "dimensionless selection point" in
the claims as a "point of intersection." (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner further
finds:
Thornton fig.3 [sic] implies that the location of the cursor 115
is determined, so the center of the cursor is also determined; the
explanation of this statement is: the center of the crosshair is
clearly located on a particular coordinate of the curve in order
to retrieve a particular value, a person of ordinary skill in the art
can understand that the center of the crosshair is not being
randomly placed at that particular location.
* * *Thornton in view of AAP A in view of Benzschawel
teaches [the limitation at issue]. When a single pixel wide
crosshair cursor (a graphical object) moving in a diagonal half
pixel step from whole pixel rendering position, the single pixel
wide crosshair cursor will then include arrays of two-by-two
pixels, and the center of the single pixel wide crosshair cursor
will be located at the intersection of 2 two-by-two pixel arrays.
(Final Act. 3-5; see also Ans. 17-18.)
Appellant argues Thornton at most discloses a crosshair made up of
an intersecting row and column of pixels, just as described in the
Specification, and thus has a two-dimensional selection area rather than the
required "dimensionless selection point." (App. Br. 13.) In response to the
Examiner's finding that Thornton "implies" otherwise, Appellant argues that
the disclosure in Thornton does not satisfy the requirements for inherent
disclosure - i.e., does not "'make clear that the missing descriptive matter
is necessarily present' ... (MPEP § 2112(IV))." (App. Br. 11-12.)
Appellant further argues that combining the subpixel disclosure of
Benzschawel with the single pixel crosshair of Thornton and the admitted
prior art fails to teach the claim limitation at issue, because Benzschawel
"does not disclose the subpixels as being used for the generation or display
4
Appeal2014-001504
Application 12/996,734
of a point selector," and further "The [cited references] do[] not disclose any
... 'moving' or locating of the center of a single pixel wide crosshair cursor,
as relied on by the Examiner." (App. Br. 14--15.)
Although we agree with the Examiner's definition of "dimensionless
selection point" as a "point of intersection," we are persuaded the Examiner
errs in finding the combination of Thornton, the Admitted Prior Art, and
Benzschawel teaches or suggests,
the pointer having a selection area defined by multiple pixels
including an array of two-by-two pixels that are adjacent to
each other and intersect at a common point, where the common
point is a point of intersection of the array of two-by-two
pixels, and where the point of intersection provides a
dimensionless selection point of the pointer.
Thornton and the admitted prior art disclose a single-pixel-wide crosshair
that has a two-dimensional selection area rather than a "point of
intersection." Although including Benzschawel in the combination fairly
suggests a crosshair that is two or more pixels wide, Appellant persuades us
that the combination nevertheless fails to teach or suggest providing a
dimensionless selection point based on a point of intersection of an array of
two-by-two pixels.
Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 7, and 13.
5
Appeal2014-001504
Application 12/996,734
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 over Thornton, Applicant's
Admitted Prior Art, and Benzschawel. We also do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 2---6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 over Thornton,
Applicant's Admitted Prior Art, and Benzschawel; and of claim 10 over
Thornton, Applicant's Admitted Prior Art, Benzschawel, and Elliott, which
claims depend from claims 1, 7, or 11.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15 is reversed.
REVERSED
6