Ex Parte MitchellDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201311070038 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRIAN T. MITCHELL ____________________ Appeal 2010-010090 Application 11/070,038 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before KEN B. BARRETT, BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD, and REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Brian T. Mitchell (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hatfield (US 6,243,076 B1, issued June 5, 2001) and Card (US 6,601,021 B2, issued July 29, 2003). An oral hearing was held on December 3, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-010090 Application 11/070,038 2 THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A training method, comprising the steps of: defining a set of instructional goals including training objectives; simulating a learning environment using a user interface and a display with pixels representing 2- and 3-dimensional objects, wherein the location of each object is represented by all of the pixels of the object visible on the display screen, and wherein the objects can move and interact; monitoring user interactions with the objects, keeping track of which pixels on the display correspond to the interacting objects upon which the user is fixated; computing various measures based upon the user interactions, including eye events, and simulation state; recording and time-stamping the computed measures; recording current user skill level based upon the computed measures; correlating current user skill level with the training objectives; and modifying the learning environment in accordance with the correlation. OPINION The claims before us include those directed to a training method (independent claim 1) and a training system (independent claim 18) using eye-tracking technology. Our opinion focuses on the claimed method, and the analysis applies equally to the system claims. Appellant challenges the Examiner’s reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to combine the references’ teachings so as to arrive at the Appeal 2010-010090 Application 11/070,038 3 claimed subject matter. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3; Hrg. Tr. (Dec. 3, 2012) 16-18. Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination fails to meet certain claim limitations that pertain to the nature of the claimed invention as a training method such as recording user skill level based upon computed measures. Reply Br. 3. The Examiner found that Hatfield disclosed much of the claimed subject matter of method claim 1. Ans. 3. The Examiner further found that Hatfield fails to disclose, inter alia, recording current user skill level based upon computed measures. Id. at 4. The Examiner relies on Card for this feature, and reasons that it would have been obvious “to modify Hatfield's invention in view of Card in order to provide an effective system and method for analyzing eye tracker data collected from a user viewing display of dynamic hypermedia pages.” Id. (citing Card, col. 7, ll. 9-23 for the recording skill level feature). As the Examiner’s reasoning implies, Card involves a user viewing dynamic hypermedia1 pages. We have reviewed the portion of Card cited by the Examiner for the disclosure of recording user skill level based upon computed measures. However, we fail to see how that portion of Card discloses a “skill level” associated with viewing hypermedia. Thus, the Examiner’s reasoning as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious lacks rational underpinning. Additionally, the Examiner has not adequately explained how the proposed modification of Hatfield’s system 1 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypermedia (last visited Aug. 12, 2013) (Hypermedia: “a database format similar to hypertext in which text, sound, or video images related to that on a display can be accessed directly from the display.”) Appeal 2010-010090 Application 11/070,038 4 into one pertaining to tracking a user’s viewing of hypermedia pages results in the claimed training method where skill levels are tracked and correlated with training objectives. For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-32 as being unpatentable over Hatfield and Card. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11 and 13-32 is reversed. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation