Ex Parte Murphy

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 29, 2010

10033520 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KILLIAN D. MURPHY
____________

Appeal 2009-007610
Application 10/033,520
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007610
Application 10/033,520

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-21, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a magnifying tool that enlarges a
selected region of displayed image surrounding a cursor in a graphical user
interface (GUI), and superimposes the enlarged region directly over the
selected region (and a portion of the adjacent non-selected region). The
location of the cursor relative to the enlarged region is co-located with the
location of the cursor relative to the selected region such that the locations
are identical. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A method of digital image magnification in a
graphical user interface (GUI), the method comprising:

identifying a selected region of a first image adjacent to a
cursor in the GUI, wherein the selected region has a
predetermined height and width that is independent of a
position of the cursor in the GUI;

forming a magnified image including an enlarged version
of the first image located in the selected region;

superimposing the magnified image over the first image
such that the magnified image masks the selected region; and

Appeal 2009-007610
Application 10/033,520

3
superimposing the cursor over the magnified image to
form a second image.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-4, 11, 14, 15, and 18-21 stand rejected as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rodriguez (US 6,704,034) and Mullet (US
5,638,523)
Claims 5-10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rodriguez, Mullet, and Chui (US 6,407,747).

Claim Groupings
In view of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 14. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

PRINCIPAL ISSUE
Does the combination of Rodriguez and Mullet teach “identifying a
selected region . . . wherein the selected region has a predetermined height
and width that is independent of a position of the cursor in the GUI” and
“superimposing the cursor over the magnified image to form a second
image” as recited in claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Mullet teaches a method and apparatus for browsing through
information in a computer database. The information to be browsed is
displayed on a display screen. A browsing tool, which resembles a
magnifying glass, is displayed on the display screen on top of the
information. The browsing tool has a viewing lens with targeting crosshair
Appeal 2009-007610
Application 10/033,520

4
and a magnifying reticle. When the browsing tool is in magnification mode,
the information within magnifying reticle is enhanced such that it fills the
entire viewing lens of the browsing tool. Title; Abstract.
2. A cursor 21 is rendered on the display screen 27. The cursor is
used by an operator to select and position objects on the display screen. Fig.
1; col. 4, ll. 13-15.
3. The browsing tool 10 is rendered on the display screen 27 such
that it appears over the database information to be browsed through. An
operator selectively positions the browsing tool 10 on the display screen 27
by moving the cursor 21 using a cursor control device 25. Figs. 1, 2A, 3A;
col. 4, ll. 39-44; col. 5, ll. 46-51.
4. The information within the browsing tool’s viewing lens 15
area is not enhanced while the browsing tool 10 is moved across the display
screen. After the browsing tool remains stationary for an amount of time,
the area within the magnifying reticle 13 becomes enhanced. Fig. 3A; col. 4,
ll. 44-50; col. 5, ll. 56-67.
5. The browsing tool 10 enhances the information within the
magnifying reticle 13 such that the information fills the viewing lens 15.
Col. 4, l. 65 to col. 5, l. 4; col. 6, ll. 8-14; Figs. 3B and 3C.
6. Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C show an example of using a browsing
tool to select and enlarge a portion of an image displayed on a screen.
Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C are reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-007610
Application 10/033,520

5

Figure 3A

Figure 3B
Appeal 2009-007610
Application 10/033,520

6

Figure 3C

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
“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.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). “The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” Id. at 416.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-13 and 18-21
Appellant contends that “the selected region has a predetermined
height and width that is independent of a position of the cursor in the GUI”
Appeal 2009-007610
Application 10/033,520

7
and “superimposing the cursor over the magnified image to form a second
image” as recited in claim 1 are not taught by the prior art.
Mullet teaches that a cursor and a browsing tool are displayed on a
screen over information to be browsed. FF 2-3. A user can move the
browsing tool across the screen using the cursor. FF 3. Information in an
area within a reticle portion of the browsing tool is then enlarged. FF 1, 4-6.
The information within the reticle of the browsing tool of Figure 3B
of Mullet (FF 6), which is identified by the user by moving the cursor to
position the browsing tool at the desired location (FF 3), teaches “identifying
a selected region of a first image adjacent to a cursor in the GUI, wherein the
selected region has a predetermined height and width that is independent of
a position of the cursor in the GUI.”
Enhancing the information within the reticle to fill the viewing lens as
shown by Figure 3C of Mullet teaches “forming a magnified image
including an enlarged version of the first image located in the selected
region.”
Displaying the enhanced image over the original unenhanced image as
shown by Figure 3C of Mullet teaches “superimposing the magnified image
over the first image such that the magnified image masks the selected
region.”
Mullet teaches that the viewing area is a part of the browsing tool (FF
4-6), and that the user positions the browsing tool by moving the cursor (FF
3). Mullet also teaches that after the browsing tool remains stationary for an
amount of time, the portion of the image within the reticle is enlarged (FF
4). A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have
recognized that positioning the browsing tool by moving the cursor as taught
Appeal 2009-007610
Application 10/033,520

8
by Mullet includes placing the cursor over the viewing area of the browsing
tool, then moving the cursor to a desired location. When the browsing tool
remains stationary for an amount of time, a magnified image is formed in the
viewing area, and the cursor, which is still in the viewing area, is
“superimposed over the magnified image” within the meaning of claim 1.
Because Mullet alone teaches all limitations of claim 1, we need not
address Appellant’s arguments that it would not have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Mullet and Rodriguez (Br. 11). Nor do we need to
address Appellant’s arguments that Rodriguez’s cursor cannot be
superimposed over the magnified image (Br. 15).
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant
has not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-13 and 18-
21, but instead relies on the arguments presented for claim 1. Therefore,
claims 2-13 and 18-21 fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 14-17
Appellant contends that neither Rodriguez nor Mullet teaches a cursor
that “masks a portion of the magnified image” as recited in claim 14. Br. 20.
However, when the cursor that is displayed by Mullet (FF 2) is located in the
viewing area of the magnified image, the cursor “masks a portion of the
magnified image” within the meaning of claim 14.
Appellant also contends that neither Rodriguez nor Mullet
superimpose the cursor for purposes of selecting a hyperlink. Br. 20.
Although Appellant argues that the Specification and the Drawings describe
selecting a hyperlink (Br. 17-20), claim 14 does not recite selecting a
Appeal 2009-007610
Application 10/033,520

9
hyperlink and Appellant has not provided evidence or persuasive argument
for reading this language into or interpreting claim 14 in this manner.
We sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims
15-17 fall with claim 14.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The combination of Rodriguez and Mullet teaches “identifying a
selected region . . . wherein the selected region has a predetermined height
and width that is independent of a position of the cursor in the GUI” and
“superimposing the cursor over the magnified image to form a second
image” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 11, 14, 15, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rodriguez and Mullet is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5-10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rodriguez, Mullet, and Chui 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-007610
Application 10/033,520

10

msc

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
P.O. BOX 10500
MCLEAN VA 22102