Ex Parte Kelley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 21, 201310905853 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte EDWARD E. KELLEY and FRANCO MOTIKA ____________ Appeal 2010-010744 Application 10/905,853 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants describe the present invention as follows: A pointer movement input device (e.g., a mouse, track ball, pad, track point device, stylus, joy stick, light pen, customized keyboard, etc.) operates in conjunction with the display and is Appeal 2010-010744 Application 10/905,853 2 used for inputting pointer movement. The computer system further comprises a controller that determines a direction of travel vector towards a target item based upon pointing device input, extrapolates the location of the target item, and moves the pointer to that target item. The process used to extrapolate the location of the target item from amongst possible target items can be based upon the direction of travel vector, vector sensitivity, additional user definable or default limits (e.g., user definable selectable items and/or sections of the display), and the relative closeness of each possible target item to either the direction of travel vector, the initial anchor position or both, etc. Spec., ¶ 9. Independent claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method of controlling movement of a pointer on a display, said method comprising: receiving, from an input device of a graphical user interface, a pointer movement input; determining, by a processor in communication with said graphical user interface, a direction of travel vector from an initial anchor position towards a single target item, said single target item being one of a plurality of possible target items on said display and said determining being based on said pointer movement input; limiting, by said processor, an area of said display within which said single target item may be located, wherein said limiting comprises applying a vector angle range that has a vertex on said initial anchor position and that is bisected by said direction of travel vector; automatically extrapolating, by said processor, a location of said single target item within said area, wherein Appeal 2010-010744 Application 10/905,853 3 said extrapolating comprises identifying said single target item from amongst said possible target items within said area by: determining, for each of said possible target items, a sum of a first distance between a possible target item and said initial anchor position plus a second distance between said possible target item and said direction of travel vector; comparing each said sum for each of said possible target items; and determining which of said possible target items has a smallest sum so as to identify said single target item; and automatically moving, by said graphical user interface, said pointer on said display to said single target item. The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of unpatentability: Kimble US 6,031,531 Feb. 29, 2000 Nakai US 6,587,131 B1 Jul. 1, 2003 Iijima US 2005/0028112 A1 Feb. 3, 2005 Baudisch US 7,231,609 B2 Jun. 12, 2007 Appeal 2010-010744 Application 10/905,853 4 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakai and Iijima. Ans., pp. 3-9.1 The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 17 under § 103 as unpatentable over Nakai, Iijima, and Kimble. Ans., pp. 9-10. The Examiner rejected claim 9 under § 103 as unpatentable over Nakai, Iijima, and Baudisch. Ans., pp. 10-11. ANALYSIS The method of claim 1 allows a computer user to select an “anchor position” on the screen and then extend a “direction of travel vector” from the anchor toward an “item” of interest. In the method, all items within an angular range of the vector are deemed “possible target items,” and the screen’s pointer is then automatically moved onto a “single target item” having a shortest summed “first distance” from the anchor and “second distance” from the vector. Claim 1 stands rejected as obvious over Nakai in view of Iijima. The Examiner has cited Nakai’s controller as satisfying all but the claimed summation of first and second distances and determined, in view of Iijima, that it would have been obvious to sum those distances of Nakai’s objects (see below). Ans., p. 4-7. We accordingly turn to Nakai’s Figure 4, reproduced below, which schematically illustrates Nakai’s cited controller. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 28, 2009 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 14, 2010 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed May 19, 2010 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2010-010744 Application 10/905,853 5 Nakai’s Figure 4 shows a schematic view of a cited controller. Upon activation, the controller displays a “direction indicator” having a “reference point” at the location of the screen pointer. Nakai, col. 5, ll. 34- 35. When the pointer is subsequently moved onto the indicator’s “vector display area” (i.e., moved toward a desired object), the controller displays a “vector of movement direction” extending from the reference point and through the pointer’s tip. Id. at col. 6, ll. 28-44. The controller also displays: a “preceding pointer” on the object closest to the vector; and “priority numbers” on the other “candidate objects” within an angular range of the vector. Id. at col. 6, l. 45 – col. 7, l. 14. The user selects either the object of the preceding pointer (e.g., by clicking the mouse) or one of the objects assigned a priority number (e.g., via a keypad), which in turn causes the controller to move the pointer onto the selected object. Id. at col. 7, ll. 25-34. The Examiner and Appellants disagree as to whether Nakai’s controller selects an object based on both first and second distances as claimed; that is, whether the controller factors an object’s “first distance” Appeal 2010-010744 Application 10/905,853 6 from the reference point (disputed), as well its “second distance” from the vector (not disputed). The Examiner found that Nakai factors each object’s “distance from reference point” (see Nakai, Fig. 2) in order to determine the objects’ priority assignments. Ans., p. 13 (citing Nakai, col. 5, ll. 6-12). In light of this finding, the Examiner inferred that Nakai’s controller must select each object (i.e., assign each object to the preceding pointer or one of priority numbers 1 to 9) based upon its first distance from the reference point, as well as its second distance from the vector. Id. Appellants argue that Nakai’s “distance from reference point” is used only to determine whether an object is too close to the reference point, in which case the object is disqualified from selection. App. Br., p. 24 (citing Nakai, col. 6, ll. 48-55). Appellants further argue that Nakai’s Figure 5 – and particularly the illustrated locations of prioritized objects – proves the priority assignments are not based on the objects’ distances from the reference point. Reply Br., p. 3. We disagree with Appellants insofar that the “distance from reference point” is optionally used to disqualify close objects. Nakai, col. 6, ll. 50-52 (“A condition that the object close to the reference point is not regarded as the candidate object may be provided.”). We further disagree insofar that, though the priority assignments of Figure 5 are indeed based on the objects’ distances from the vector (id. at col. 7, ll. 8-12), Nakai confirms “the method of setting the preceding pointer and the object display indexes [i.e., priority numbers] on the candidate objects is not limited” (id. at col. 7, ll. 1-5). Thus, we are not convinced that Nakai fails to at least suggest selecting an object based upon other disclosed parameters; that is, other than the distance Appeal 2010-010744 Application 10/905,853 7 from the vector. Cf., id. at col. 4, ll. 57-58 (determining the priority assignments from the objects’ frequency of past selection). Nevertheless, the Examiner has not shown that Nakai teaches or suggests selecting an object based upon, conjunctively, its distances to the reference point and vector. Of course, this deficiency is immaterial if the Examiner correctly determined that Iijima suggests summing these distances. The Examiner particularly determined that, because Iijima’s touchpad sums multiple stylus movements/vectors to produce a single pointer movement/vector, it would have been obvious for Nakai to sum each object’s distances from the reference point and vector to select an object (and, in turn, allow a corresponding pointer movement). Ans. 14 (citing Nakai, Fig. 4). Appellants argue that Iijima’s cited teachings are inapplicable to both Nakai and the claimed invention, primarily because the teachings pertain to vectors and not distances. App. Br., p. 26. We agree with Appellants. The cited touchpad of Iijima sums multiple stylus movements/vectors to form a single pointer movement/vector on a display. Iijima, ¶¶ 51-53; Fig. 4. The vector teachings of Iijima have no apparent relation to Nakai’s process of selecting objects, differing at least insofar as: (i) calculating vectors (Iijima) versus distances (Nakai); and (ii) calculating a single possible pointer movement from multiple direction inputs (Iijima’s stylus movements) versus calculating multiple possible pointer movements (Nakai’s “candidate objects”) from a single direction input (Nakai’s “vector of movement direction”). Further, the Examiner has not adequately explained how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Nakai’s process of selecting objects with Iijima’s vector operations in order to meet the feature recited in claim 1 of Appeal 2010-010744 Application 10/905,853 8 automatically extrapolating the location of a single target item by summing first and second distances. Given these deficiencies, the Examiner’s obviousness rationale is unsatisfactory. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the obvious rejection of claim 1 over Nakai and Iijima. As the Examiner commits the same errors with respect to remaining claims 1-5 and 7-19, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of: claims 2-5, 7, 10-16, 18, and 19 over Nakai and Iijima; claims 8 and 17 over Nakai, Iijima, and Kimble; and claim 9 over Nakai, Iijima, and Baudisch. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-19 is reversed. REVERSED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation