Ex Parte Ludwig

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12618698 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/618,698 11113/2009 Lester Frank Ludwig
52531 7590 09/30/2016
CHRISTENSEN O'CONNOR JOHNSON KINDNESS PLLC
1201 THIRD A VENUE
SUITE 3600
SEATTLE, WA 98101-3029
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.
138347 7188
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, PHUONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
efiling@cojk.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LESTER FRANK LUDWIG
Appeal2015-003806
Application 12/618,698
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-10, 12-16, and 19-24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention uses two independently adjustable and
positionable cursors to edit an electronic document. Copy or cut operations
may be made with one cursor, while paste operations may be repeated using
the second cursor. See generally Abstract; Spec. i-fi-1190-95; Figs. 13a-13b.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for facilitating computer editing of an electronic
document, the electronic document comprising a plurality of objects that are
Appeal2015-003806
Application 12/618,698
graphically rendered in a layout comprising a plurality of unique locations,
the method comprising:
positioning a first cursor at a first location within the electronic
document responsive to user input from a first pair of parameters produced
by a touchpad, the touchpad providing at least four independently adjustable
parameters;
positioning a second cursor at a second location within the electronic
document responsive to user input from a second pair of parameters
produced by the touchpad, wherein the first and second cursors are
independently displayable, positionable, and operable at any of the plurality
of unique locations of the electronic document;
defining a selection string via the first cursor based upon a selected
contiguous arrangement of at least one object of the plurality of objects; and
transferring the selection string to a location within the electronic
document as determined by the second location of the second cursor.
RELATED APPEALS
On page 2 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant informs us of four related
appeals, two of which, namely the appeals in Applications 11/008,892 and
10/997,097, resulted in decisions of this Board. See Ex parte Ludwig, No.
2011-004940 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013); see also Ex parte Ludwig, No. 2011-
004011 (PTAB Sept. 30, 2013). The issues in those appeals, however, are
not germane to the issues before us in this appeal. The other two
applications were abandoned after appeal without a Board decision.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10, 12-16, 19-22, and 24 under
2
Appeal2015-003806
Application 12/618,698
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baudel (US 5,666,499; Sept. 9,
1997), Barber (US 5,586,243; Dec. 17, 1996), and Lee (US 5,999,169; Dec.
7, 1999). Final Act. 2-14. 1
The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baudel, Barber, Lee, and Ludwig (US 2002/0005108 Al;
Jan. 17, 2002). Final Act. 14--15.
THE REJECTION OVER BAUDEL, BARBER, AND LEE
The Examiner finds that Baudel discloses many recited elements of
claim 1 including positioning first and second cursors responsive to user
input from respective pairs of parameters produced by respective pointer
devices-not a single such device, let alone a touchpad as claimed. Final
Act. 2-3. The Examiner, however, cites (1) Barber for teaching controlling
multiple cursors with the same control device, namely a mouse, and (2) Lee
for teaching that providing user input from a touchpad is known in the art.
Final Act. 4. Based on these collective teachings, the Examiner concludes
that claim 1 would have been obvious. Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's reliance on Lee is misplaced
because Lee's "single, isolated mention" of a touch screen as one of many
means by which a human can input data to a computer provides no clues or
guidance as to how a touchpad could be used to control two cursors. App.
Br. 7-13; Reply Br. 2-5.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
February 28, 2014 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed October 14,
2014 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed December 4, 2014
("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed February 4, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2015-003806
Application 12/618,698
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Baudel, Barber, and Lee collectively would have taught or suggested
positioning first and second cursors responsive to user input from respective
pairs of parameters produced by a touchpad?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-10, 12-16, and 19-22
We begin by noting that the Examiner's reliance on Baudel and
Barber is undisputed. That is, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's
findings that ( 1) Baudel' s system positions first and second cursors
responsive to user input from respective pairs of parameters produced by
respective pointer devices, and (2) Barber's system controls multiple
cursors, namely pointers 71, 72, and 7 4, with the same control device
(mouse 24) in Figures 1 and 10. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Barber, col. 11, 1. 55
- col. 12, 1. 4). Nor does Appellant dispute the Examiner's conclusion that,
in light of Barber, it would have been obvious to modify Baudel's two-input
control to use a single input device to control multiple cursors. Final Act. 4.
The question, then, is whether the Examiner erred by concluding that
using a touchpad, such as that suggested by Lee, in lieu of Barber's mouse
for this single input device would have been obvious. On this record, we
discern no error in the Examiner's rejection in this regard.
As shown in Lee's Figure 1, Lee's system includes a user command
input device 2 that produces movement and selection signals provided
through mouse cable 4 to a computer 6 with mouse interface 18 and mouse
4
Appeal2015-003806
Application 12/618,698
driver 20. Lee, col. 4, 11. 1-20, 51-59. One mouse driver function provides
the user interface window in Figure 3 that includes, among other things,
two-cursor operation enabling, for example, one cursor to scroll, and the
other cursor to select text for cutting and pasting. Lee, col. 5, 11. 10-12; col.
6, 11. 43-53.
Notably, user input in Lee may not only be received from a mouse,
but also from a touch screen, or any other means by which a human can
input data to a computer. Lee, col. 7, 11. 52-55. Although Lee refers
specifically to a touch screen, and not a touchpad, we nevertheless see no
error in the Examiner's reliance on this teaching at least to the extent that a
touchpad would have been an obvious variation over a touch screen. We
reach this conclusion not only in light of Lee's including, quite broadly, any
other data input means as an alternative in the relied-upon passage in
column seven, but also given the recognized equivalence of touch screens
and touchpads in the art as touch-sensitive devices. See, e.g., DICTIONARY
OF COMPUTING, Oxford Ref. 471-72 (3d ed. 1990) ("Oxford Computing
Dictionary").2
2 The term "touch-sensitive device" is defined as follows:
A flat rectangular device that responds to the touch of, say, a
finger by transmitting the coordinates of the touched point to a
computer. The touch-sensitive area may be the VDU [visual
display unit] screen itself, in which case it is called a touch
screen; alternatively it may be integral with the keyboard or a
separate unit that can be placed on a desk. In the ... latter two
cases movement of the finger across the so-called touchpad can
cause the cursor to move around the screen.
Oxford Computing Dictionary, at 471-72 (emphasis in original).
5
Appeal2015-003806
Application 12/618,698
That Lee lacks specific guidance as to how a touchpad could be used
to control two cursors as Appellant contends (App. Br. 7-13; Reply Br. 2-5)
is of no consequence here, for the Examiner does not rely solely on Lee, but
rather the collective teachings of Baudel, Barber, and Lee in concluding that
using a touchpad to control two cursors as claimed would have been at least
an obvious variation over using a mouse as in the Baudel/Barber system.
That Barber's mouse 24 can be substituted with other devices providing the
same function and control, such as the non-limiting examples of a track ball
or joystick in column 4, lines 41 to 50, only bolsters this conclusion.
Appellant's arguments regarding Lee's individual shortcomings, then,
do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the
cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F .2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In short, the Examiner's proposed
enhancement to the Baudel/Barber system to use a touchpad as suggested by
Lee uses prior art elements predictably according to their established
functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007). We, therefore, find that the Examiner's combining
the teachings of these references is supported by articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness
conclusion.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2-10, 12-16, 19-22 not argued separately with
particularity.
6
Appeal2015-003806
Application 12/618,698
Claim 24
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24 reciting a paste
operation at an insertion point defined by the second pair of parameters
produced by the touchpad, and repeating the paste operation using the
second cursor. Ans. 13-14. Although Appellant reiterates that Lee's single
mention of a touch screen is insufficient to support the Examiner's
obviousness conclusion (App. Br. 13-14), we are unpersuaded by this
argument for the reasons previously discussed.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 23
over Baudel, Barber, Lee, and Ludwig. Final Act. 14--15. Despite
nominally arguing this rejection separately, Appellant reiterates similar
arguments made in connection with claim 1, and alleges that Ludwig fails to
cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 14. We are not persuaded by
these arguments for the reasons previously discussed. 3
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-10, 12-16, and 19-24
under§ 103.
3 Although Appellant indicates that the Examiner's Answer did not address
Appellant's arguments regarding claim 23, the arguments for claim 23 are
similar to those raised for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive for the
reasons noted previously. Nor did the Examiner withdraw the rejection of
claim 23 (see Ans. 2}-a rejection that is not erroneous on this record.
7
Appeal2015-003806
Application 12/618,698
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10, 12-16, and 19-24 is
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
8