Ex Parte Geurts et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2018

12299811 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018)

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.
12/299,811 11/06/2008 Lucas Jacobus Franciscus Geurts 2006P01245WOUS 3080
24737 7590 02/28/2018
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue CHOI, DAVID E
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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):
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
marianne. fox @ philips, com
katelyn.mulroy @philips .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUCAS JACOBUS FRANCISCUS GEURTS,
ANTON OGUZHAN ALFORD ANDREWS,
JUDITH ANGES JOSEPHINA PEETEN, and
ROBERT KORTENOEVEN
Appeal 2017-005500
Application 12/299,811
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4-11. Appellants have canceled claim 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. as the real party
in interest.
Appeal 2017-005500
Application 12/299,811
BACKGROUND
The present patent application concerns a device, method, and
computer program product that allow a user to select a menu option. See
Spec. 1, filed November 6, 2008. Claims 1, 8, and 10 are independent. App.
Br. 16-18, filed October 12, 2016. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
1. An electronic device comprising:
electronic circuitry to:
detect selection of a position on a screen;
in response to the selection of the position on the
screen, display a plurality of circular selection areas, each
circular selection area having a menu option identifier and
a circumference proportional to a distance between a
respective menu option identifier and the selected position
on the screen, wherein the selected position on the screen
is located at an off-center location within a first circular
selection area of the plurality of circular selection areas;
detect selection of a given circular selection area of
the plurality of circular selection areas; and
activate a menu option identifier located in the
given circular selection area, in response to the detected
selection of the given circular selection area.
App. Br. 16.
In a prior appeal, we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of an earlier
version of the claims at issue as obvious over prior art combinations that
included the Vernier2 reference. See Decision on Appeal 2-7, mailed
October 15, 2015. Vernier is not part of the rejections before us in the
current appeal. See Final Office Action 3-10, mailed June 1, 2016.
2 Vernier et al. (US 6,791,530 B2; issued Sept. 14, 2004).
2
Appeal 2017-005500
Application 12/299,811
REJECTIONS
Claims Rejected Basis Reference(s)
1, 2, and 8-11 § 103(a) Selker,3 Hoffman,4 and
Rostom5
4-7 § 103(a) Selker, Hoffman,
Rostom, and Su6
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “each circular selection area having a . . .
circumference proportional to a distance between a respective menu option
identifier and the selected position on the screen.” App. Br. 16. Appellants
contend the Examiner erroneously concluded a combination of Selker,
Hoffmann, and Rostom teaches or suggests this limitation. See App. Br. 9-
11; Reply Br. 3-6, filed February 14, 2017. In particular, Appellants take
issue with the Examiner’s finding that Hoffmann’s Figure 3 teaches or
suggests the recited circumference, arguing that Figure 3 “merely provides a
visual representation of formulas within software.” Reply Br. 5. According
to Appellants, “Hoffman does not actually] teach or suggest the display of
anything” and “has absolutely nothing to do with the features of claim 1.”
Reply Br. 5.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner found
Hoffmann’s Figure 3 teaches the recited “circumference proportional to a
distance between a respective menu option identifier and the selected
position on the screen.” See Ans. 5; Final Office Action 4, mailed June 1,
2016. Hoffmann’s Figure 3 shows a series of nested ovals that represent
3 Selker (US 2002/0122072 Al; published Sept. 5, 2002).
4 Hoffmann et al. (US 2006/0059417 Al; published Mar. 16, 2006).
5 Rostom (US 2006/0095865 Al; published May 4, 2006).
6 Ling Su et al. (US 2006/0190836 Al; published Aug. 24, 2006).
3
Appeal 2017-005500
Application 12/299,811
nested or layered formulas. See Hoffmann ^ 21, Figure 3. We agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has not set forth with sufficient specificity how
this figure teaches or suggests “a circumference proportional to a distance
between a respective menu option identifier and the selected position on the
screen.” Neither Figure 3 nor its accompanying description indicates the
circumferences of the depicted ovals are proportional to “a distance between
a respective menu option identifier and the selected position on the screen.”
See Hoffmann 28-29, Figure 3. As put by Appellants, “[j]ust because
there are circles in [Hoffmann] . . . does not make [Hoffmann] map onto
every claim reciting a circumference or a circle.” Reply Br. 5-6.
For the above reasons, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims. Because the
Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning to address similar
limitations in independent claims 8 and 10, see Final Office Action 5, we
also are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
these claims and their respective dependent claims.
4
Appeal 2017-005500
Application 12/299,811
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected Basis References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, and 8-
11
§ 103(a) Selker,
Hoffman,
and Rostom
1, 2, and 8-
11
4-7 § 103(a) Selker,
Hoffman,
Rostom, and
Su
4-7
Summary 1, 2, and 4-
11
REVERSED
5