Ex Parte Fitzmaurice et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2016

12004432 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 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.
12/004,432 12/21/2007 George Fitzmaurice AUTO/1338US 9633
107456 7590 12/09/2016
Artegis Law Group, LLP
John Carey
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LE V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2016 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):
algdocketing @ artegislaw. com
kcruz @ artegislaw.com
mmccauley @ artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGE FITZMAURICE, GORDON KURTENBACH, LYNN
MILLER, and JOE DI VITTORIO
Appeal 2016-001588
Application 12/004,4321
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 27—59. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Autodesk, Inc. (App.
Br. 3).
Appeal 2016-001588
Application 12/004,432
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 27, 49, 51, 53, and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Screen Dumps of Macromedia Flash MX (hereby
"Macromedia Flash”) and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (Spec. 123, hereby
“AAPA”). Ans. 2.
Claims 28—31, 42, 55, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Macromedia Flash, AAPA, and Buxton et al. (US
6,094,197, published July 25, 2000). Ans. 6.
Claims 32, 33, 37—39, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Macromedia Flash, AAPA, and Bernstein et al.
(US 2004/0093565 Al, published May 13, 2004). Ans. 12.
Claims 34, 36, 40, and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Macromedia Flash, AAPA, Buxton, and Bernstein.
Ans. 14.
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Macromedia Flash, AAPA, Bernstein, and Tosey (US
2004/0125153 Al, published July 1, 2004). Ans. 16.
Clams 43—48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Buxton, Michaud et al. (US 7,139,970 B2, published Nov.
21, 2006), and Cohen et al (US 7,024,658 Bl, published Apr. 4, 2006). Ans.
17.
Claim 50 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Macromedia Flash, Michaud, and Quartetti (US 6,606,105
Bl, published Aug. 12, 2003). Ans. 20.
Claim 52 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Macromedia Flash and Buxton. Ans. 22.
2
Appeal 2016-001588
Application 12/004,432
Claim 56 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA, Buxton, Michaud, and Cohen. Ans. 24.
Claim 59 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Macromedia Flash, AAPA, Michaud, and Quartetti. Ans.
26.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to “layer editor for a pen-based
computer” and more particularly to a “system where user identification of
layers does not require text input, commands can be applied to the layers
using a marking menu approach and where the invocation of the marking
menus is facilitated by large ‘hit areas’ for the menu in the layer editor.”
Spec. 12. Independent claims 27, 30, 32, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54 are directed
to interfaces; independent claims 42 and 55 are directed to editors;
independent claims 43 and 56 are directed to methods; independent claims
48 and 57 are directed to non-transitory computer readable storage;
independent claims 49 and 58 are directed to apparatus; and independent
claims 50 and 59 are directed to computer readable data structures. App. Br.
21-28.
Claim 27 recites:
27. A layer editor interface, comprising:
layer representation graphic having layer options and a
target area with target a size of at least 2e where e is a distance
error accuracy of an input device; and
a pop-up menu control for each layer activatable from
within the layer options by a computer, activating the pop-up
control in association with a layer when detecting a cursor
pressed over a target area of a layer option matching the layer,
3
Appeal 2016-001588
Application 12/004,432
and applying a command for the layer responsive to a selection
of the command via the pop-up menu control.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the
pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references.
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from
which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, We provide the
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis.
Appellants contend Paragraph 23 of Appellants’ Specification,
identified by the Examiner as Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, is not prior
art. App. Br. 15—16. Specifically, regarding “a target area with target a size
[sic] of at least 2e where e is a distance error accuracy of an input device,” as
recited in claims 27, 32, 42, and 53—59, Appellants argue Paragraph 23’s
inclusion of a target being at least 2e in size to assure the cursor is within the
target if the user points to the center of the target is a preferred embodiment
and not prior art, and that nothing in Fitts Law teaches or suggests specific
or particular target sizes. App. Br. 17—18. In response, the Examiner finds
Paragraph 23 describes “pointing with a pen moves the cursor to that
location +/- e, where e is the distance ‘error accuracy of the pen’” and “tablet
pc pens or styli e is about l-2mm, so the targets are preferably at least 4 mm
high and wide,” showing the targets are 2e, are typical and current teachings
4
Appeal 2016-001588
Application 12/004,432
and thereby prior art. Ans. 29, citing Spec. 123. We agree with the
Examiner.
Paragraph 23 of Appellants’ Specification discloses:
To make the layer editor 10 easier to use with a pen or stylus, the
controls in the layer editor 10 should be relatively large or
present relatively large targets for the pen user to hit. Large
controls, in the context of a pen or stylus, relate to the accuracy
of the pointing device. Typically, pointing with a pen moves the
cursor to that location +/- e, where e is the distance “error
accuracy of the pen. ” Preferably, a target has to be at least 2e
in size to assure that if the user does point to the center of the
target the cursor will be within the target. With current tablet
pc pens or styli e is about l-2mm, so target are preferably at least
4 mm high and wide. This of course is an extreme minimum:
10mm is much more acceptable and preferable. In addition,
“Fitts Law” of pointing indicates that the ease of pointing is
proportional to the width of the target, so bigger is generally
better.
Spec. 123 (emphasis added). In other words, Paragraph 23 of Appellants’
Specification describes Fitts Law and known techniques requiring larger
target areas in order to provide ease and accuracy of pointing. As such,
Paragraph 23 of Appellants’ Specification, including known Fitts Law and
known techniques regarding large targets for pen users to hit, teaches or
suggests large targets that are bigger than the error distance e, and that larger
targets are ideal and lead to fewer errors.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that “a target area
with target a size of at least 2e where e is a distance error accuracy of an
input device,” as recited in claims 27, 32, 42, and 53—59, is not taught or
otherwise suggested by Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, specifically the
portions of Paragraph 23 of Appellants’ Specification disclosing that it is
known that targets should be larger than the error e in order to provide ease
5
Appeal 2016-001588
Application 12/004,432
and accuracy of pointing. The idea that a designer would make a target area
smaller than the known error range +/- e of the input device which would
predictably result in more errors, “makes little sense. A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejections of independent claims
27, 32, 42, and 53-59.
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for claims 28—31, 33—41, and 43—52. Therefore, the Examiner’s § 103
rejections of claims 28—31, 33—41, and 43—52 are sustained for similar
reasons as noted supra.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 27—59 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6