Ex Parte Hedrick

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 24, 2007

10616208 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 24, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte GEOFFREY S.M. HEDRICK
__________

Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: September 24, 2007
__________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). An oral hearing on this appeal was conducted on September 12,
2007.
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208

THE INVENTION
The disclosed invention relates in general to the display of manually-
entered data on a flat panel display and, more particularly, to assisting the
manual entry or adjustment of flight-related data that is normally displayed
in a particular form on a flat panel display in an aircraft cockpit
(Specification 3).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of facilitating user entry of a manually-
adjustable data setting normally imaged in a predetermined size
on an imaging display in an aircraft cockpit, comprising the
steps of:

manually manipulating, by the user, a control for one of
adjusting the data setting and selecting the data setting to be
adjusted;

sensing said manipulating of the control by the user;

enlarging, in response to said sensed manipulating of the
control by the user, the image of the data setting on the display
from the predetermined size to a predeterminately enlarged size
to unambiguously direct the user's attention to the
predeterminately enlarged imaged data setting to be adjusted;

maintaining the enlarged image of the data setting on the
display during said sensed manipulating of the control by the
user; and

reducing the enlarged image of the data setting on the
display from the predeterminately enlarged size to the
predetermined size when said sensed manipulating of the
control is determined to have ceased.

2
Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208

THE REFERENCES
Feyereisen US 2003/0132860 A1 Jul. 17, 2003
Amro US 6,909,439 B1 Jun. 21, 2005

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Feyereisen in view of Amro.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Brief and the Answer for the respective details thereof.

ISSUE
We find the following issue to be dispositive with respect to all claims
on appeal:
Whether Feyereisen or Amro teaches the recited limitation of
“reducing the enlarged image of the data setting on the display from the
predeterminately enlarged size to the predetermined size when said sensed
manipulating of the control is determined to have ceased.” (claim 1,
emphasis added; see also the equivalent language recited in independent
claim 10).
Although we need not reach the issue of hindsight to decide this
appeal, we nevertheless agree with Appellant that the Examiner has
impermissibly relied upon hindsight in formulating the rejection (see
analysis infra).

3
Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208

STATEMENT OF LAW
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). To be nonobvious,
an improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.

ANALYSIS
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 10
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Feyereisen in view of Amro.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that neither Feyereisen nor Amro teaches
returning the enlarged imaged data to its original size in response to the
cessation of user manipulation of a control (Br. 9, 11-12). Appellant further
contends that nothing in Feyereisen teaches or suggests changing the size of
the displayed data in response to any specific user action. Instead, Appellant
points out that all such data display changes in Feyereisen occur solely in
response to the current mode or phase of flight (Br. 9; see also Feyereisen
¶0062). Regarding the secondary Amro reference, Appellant notes that a
specific user action (e.g., tapping with a stylus on an indicated screen area)
is required to close the enlarged data entry window (Br. 12). Appellant
concludes the Examiner has impermissibly relied upon hindsight in
formulating the rejection (Br. 13).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that manually
adjusting flight indicators by the pilot is inherent in the teachings of
4
Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208

Feyereisen. The Examiner states: “it appears that the indicators [in
Feyereisen] are enlarged responsive to the user selecting and manipulating
the altimeter indicator. Even if it is not, enlarging a graphical object to
receive user manipulation is well known in the art as disclosed by Amro
(col. 5, lines 43-64, col. 6, lines 43-65, and in figures 6A-6C).” (Answer 9).
The Examiner contends that an artisan would have been motivated to make
the proffered combination to realize “accuracy of input” and “ease of user
concentration as suggested by Amro (5:43-57).” (Answer 10).
We begin our analysis by noting the primary Feyereisen reference
teaches an aircraft cockpit display “whereby different ones of the
information displays are dynamically emphasized as a predetermined
function of the current mode or phase of flight.” (see Feyereisen, ¶0062).
After carefully reviewing the Feyereisen reference in its entirety, we find no
support for the Examiner’s contention that “the indicators [in Feyereisen] are
enlarged responsive to the user selecting and manipulating the altimeter
indicator.” (Answer 9, ¶2). We find Feyereisen’s mode control 46 merely
selects one of four operation modes associated with the Traffic Alert
Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), i.e., the “standby,” “transponder on,”
“traffic alert,” and “traffic alert/resolution” modes (see Feyereisen ¶0013).
Thus, the modes controlled by control 46 appear to have no direct nexus
with the “taxi,” “take off,” “cruising,” “approach,” “landing,” and “ground”
phases or current modes of flight that trigger a dynamic emphasis (i.e., an
enlargement) of certain display indicators associated with a particular phase
of flight.
5
Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208

We note the secondary Amro reference teaches, in one embodiment, a
Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) that implements “graphical widgets” that
may be resized to allow easier user input (see Amro col. 5, ll. 35-45). We
find Amro discloses that manual input (e.g., tapping a stylus to select a
return widget) is required to return the display to its original (smaller) size,
as follows:
The mechanism of the present invention provides graphical
widgets displayed on a screen. A graphical widget is a graphical
input mechanism that can be resized to allow easier user input.
Input may be received by the graphical widget in its reduced
form, but is more difficult. These graphical widgets are
displayed in a predefined size and layout in these examples.
These graphical widgets are small in size and not typically
suitable for user input, but when selected or tapped, a graphical
widget will increase or grow in size to a preprogrammed
percentage of the size of the screen and display a small "return"
or "get back" graphical widget. This return widget is used to
return the graphical widget to its original size. Alternatively,
instead of selecting a return widget, the user may reselect the
graphical widget to cause the graphical widget to be resized to
the original size [emphasis added].
(Amro, col. 5, ll. 42-57).

When in its expanded form, the graphical widget is of a size
that allows the user to input data using a stylus. Further, the size
may be of one that allows the user to be able to see text being
entered. When the return widget is selected, the graphical
widget is returned to its original size and layout. This return
widget may be a graphical object, such as, for example, a small
button displayed in association with the graphical widget
[emphasis added].
(Amro, col. 5, l. 60 through col. 6, l. 1).

For example, a user of a PDA desires to fill in a name and
number in a contact list. The user may tap a name test field,
6
Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208

which is a graphical widget, with a stylus. In response, the
graphical widget will increase in size such that the user can
more easily enter the name. When the user is finished, the user
may select the return widget and have the name text field return
to its original size and layout [emphasis added].
(Amro, col. 6, ll. 4-9).

In particular, we note that when a user ceases entering data into
Amro’s data entry window (i.e., graphical widget), the display does not
return to its normal (smaller) size until the user actively selects the return
widget (see Amro, col. 5, ll. 53-54). Alternately, the user must reselect the
graphical widget to cause the graphical widget to be resized to its original
size (see Amro, col. 5, ll. 54-57). Therefore, we do not agree with the
Examiner that Amro fairly teaches or suggests the language of instant claims
1 and 10 that requires the enlarged image of the displayed data to be reduced
to its original (predetermined) size “when said sensed manipulating of the
control is determined to have ceased.” (claim 1). See also the equivalent
language recited in independent claim 10, i.e., “when user manipulating of
said control has ceased.”).
Hindsight
Appellant further contends the Examiner has impermissibly relied
upon hindsight in formulating the rejection (see Br. 13).
The Examiner asserts in the rejection that an artisan, having
knowledge of Feyereisen’s aircraft display system, would have looked to the
stylus-triggered enlargement and return-to-original-size feature of Amro’s
personal digital assistant (PDA) for the purpose of achieving “ease and
accuracy of user input parameters.” (see Answer 4).
7
Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208

We note that the U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that “[a]
factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight
bias and must be cautious of argument reliant upon ex post reasoning.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See also
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at 36, 148 USPQ at 474. Nevertheless,
in KSR the Supreme Court also qualified the issue of hindsight by stating
that “[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common
sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with
it.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Here, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art having
common sense at the time of the invention would not have reasonably
combined the Feyereisen and Amro references in the manner suggested by
the Examiner. In particular, we see no deficiency in the teachings of
Feyereisen that would have led an artisan familiar with aircraft displays and
controls to look to Amro’s unrelated teaching of a PDA stylus-triggered
resizing feature. In the record before us, we find only the instant
Specification teaches or suggests that a stylus could conceivably be used in
an aircraft for the purpose of control panel data entry or adjustment (see
Specification 8, l. 6). Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
has impermissibly relied upon hindsight in formulating the rejection.
Moreover, based upon the record before us, we conclude that the instant
invention (as claimed) is a nonobvious advancement in aircraft safety that is
more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
8
Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208

For at least the aforementioned reasons, we agree with Appellant that
the Examiner has failed to meet the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10 as being unpatentable over Feyereisen in view
of Amro. Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of each
independent claim, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of any
dependent claims under appeal. Therefore, we also reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 as being unpatentable over
Feyereisen in view of Amro.

DECISION
In summary, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of any
claims under appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-19 is reversed.

REVERSED

pgc

Lance J. Lieberman, Esq.
Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman & Pavane
Suite 1210
551 Fifth Avenue
New York NY 10176
9