Ex Parte Nissen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2014

11790869 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OLUF NISSEN and MARGUERITE LETULLE
____________

Appeal 2012-002853
Application 11/790,869
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC B. GRIMES, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12,
15, 18, 19, and 22–36 (App. Br. 1). Examiner entered rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP
(App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2012-002853
Application 11/790,869

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a method for bringing user attention to a
region of a display containing guidance information, a system for bringing
attention to a region of a display containing guidance information, and a
computer-readable memory medium storing a computer-executable program
comprising code which when executed by a computer implements a method.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are representative and are reproduced in the Claims
Appendix of Appellants’ Brief.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, 22, 23, 25–29, 31–34, and 36 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ko2 and
Brown.3
Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ko, Brown, and Lui.4
Claims 24, 30, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ko, Brown, and Wies.5
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?

2 Ko, US 2003/0103072 A1, published June 5, 2003.
3 Brown et al., US 2006/0048215 A1, published Mar. 2, 2006.
4 Lui et al., US 2002/0118220 A1, published Aug. 29, 2002.
5 Wies et al., US 6,161,126, issued Dec. 12, 2000.
Appeal 2012-002853
Application 11/790,869

3
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Appellants’ FIGs. 2A and 2B are reproduced below:

FIG. 2A illustrates an exemplary display 200 presented on
display device 108 (FIG. 1). Display 200 contains guidance
information[6] 202A, 203A and 204A presented in accordance
with the same initial animation mode. That is, guidance
information 202A, 203A and 204A are presented with the same
static attributes (for example, the same font, font style, font
size, and font color, etc., as well as the same dynamic attributes
(motion, fading, etc.). In this particular example, guidance
information 202A, 203A and 204A are grouped together in an
instruction group 201 and address all of the user inputs
requested on this display.
Also included in display 200 are various user input
display regions 208A, 208B and 208C (collectively referred to
as user input display region 208) for receiving input from a
user. Input display region 208A comprises a series of
checkboxes 206A, 206B, 206C and 206D. User input display
region 208B comprises an input text field 210 and an associated
label 211. Input display region 208C comprises a graphical
button that the user must select for the data entered into user
input display regions 208A and 208B to be processed. . . .
FIG. 2B is an orthogonal view of display 200 after the
user has selected the GO button 208C and an embodiment of
the present invention determined that the user has entered an
invalid user input. . . . In response to this determination,

6 According to Appellants’ Specification, “guidance information” is “a user
instruction” (id. at ¶ 19).
Appeal 2012-002853
Application 11/790,869

4
embodiments of the present invention will cause the user
instruction corresponding to the invalid user input to be
displayed in an altered animation mode to bring attention to the
instruction.
(Spec.7 ¶¶ 30–32.)
FF 2. Ko “relates to the display of information messages, such as warnings
or error messages, associated with various elements within a GUI” (Ko ¶ 1;
see also id. at ¶ 8 (“the present invention provides dynamic user interface
reporting of computer warnings and errors. This is accomplished by way of
notification objects that relay information to a user regarding errors,
warnings, and the like”) (emphasis added)).
FF 3. Ko’s FIGs. 2 and 2A are reproduced below:

The exemplary window 200, illustrated in FIG. 2, is associated
with a Setup Assistant for customizing the computer's operating
system (OS). The page of information displayed in the window
200 (i.e., page 8) allows a user to enter a name to identify the
computer and a password by which the computer may be

7 Nissen et al., US 2008/0269919 A1, published Oct. 30, 2008.
Appeal 2012-002853
Application 11/790,869

5
accessed. Two data entry fields 210, 212 are provided for the
entry of a computer name and password, respectively. Once
this information has been entered, the user proceeds with the
operating system setup procedure by clicking on the right arrow
contained within the controls 208 to advance to the next page of
the setup information (i.e., to page 9). If, however, the user
neglects to enter text in one of the data entry fields 210, 212
when text is required in these fields, and attempts to advance to
the subsequent setup page, an error message is generated. . . .
An example of such an error message window 214 is illustrated
in FIG. 2A.
(Ko ¶¶ 21–22.)
FF 4. Ko suggests that “those skilled in the art will recognize, to draw the
user’s attention to the notification object . . . at the time of its display, an
animation sequence may be used to render the notification object” (id. at
¶ 24 (emphasis added); id. at ¶ 36 (“the type of animation . . . presented at
the appearance of such notification objects or associated with their motion
(e.g., collapsing, etc.) may be varied depending on various design choices,
according to the characteristics desired to be presented to the computer
user”).
FF 5. Examiner finds that Ko fails to suggest the display of one or more of
the guidance instructions in one or more altered animation modes in
response to determining that the user input in any particular user input
display region fails to satisfy one or more of the corresponding validation
criteria (Ans. 5).
FF 6. Examiner finds that Brown suggests the display of a first error
message if a “password was incorrectly entered, and a final error message or
a hint instruction/message (altered mode(s)) will be displayed if the
maximum number of attempts ha[ve] already been reached” (id. (emphasis
added); see also Ans. 11 (Brown suggests “[a] password verification system
Appeal 2012-002853
Application 11/790,869

6
. . . designed or programmed to display different states or modes of the
notification objects or error/instruction messages, which can be altered in
comparison with the first/original notification object/message”); Brown
¶¶ 28–30).
FF 7. Examiner finds that the combination of Ko and Brown fails to
suggest “receiving . . . user input in response to a user touching a touch
screen display device” and relies on Lui to make up for this deficiency in the
combination of Ko and Brown (Ans. 8–9).
FF 8. Examiner finds that the combination of Ko and Brown fails to
suggest “force feedback including physical movement of a user input device
for alerting a user” that “the user[’s] input in any particular one or more of
the user input display regions fails to satisfy one or more of the
corresponding validation criteria” (Ans. 9).
ANALYSIS
Based on the combination of Ko and Brown, Examiner concludes that,
at the time Appellants’ invention was made, it would have been prima facie
obvious “to have the altered display features of Brown in the error
notification system of Ko” (Ans. 5). We are not persuaded.
Each of Appellants’ independent claims requires the display of “a
plurality of guidance instructions in an initial animation mode” (see
Appellants’ independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (emphasis added)). As
illustrated in Appellants’ FIG. 2A and disclosed in Appellants’
Specification, guidance instructions provide instructions to a user, see e.g.,
elements 202A, 203A, and 204A of Appellants’ FIG. 2A, that relate to user
input areas, see e.g., elements208A–208C of display 200 in Appellants’ FIG.
2A (FF 1). Similarly, Ko suggests a display with a set of guidance
Appeal 2012-002853
Application 11/790,869

7
instructions e.g., “Your computer needs a name . . .” and “You need a
password . . .” that correspond to user input areas 210 and 212 of Ko’s FIG.
2 (FF 3).
“If . . . [Ko’s] user neglects to enter text in one of the data entry fields
210, 212 when text is required in these fields, and attempts to advance to the
subsequent setup page, an error message [214] is generated” (FF 3
(emphasis added); see generally FF 2). Ko suggests that the “error message”
may be animated to draw a user’s attention to the error (FF 4). This is not
what Appellants have claimed.
Appellants’ claimed invention requires the display of a plurality of
guidance instructions in an initial animation mode and when a user’s input
in any particular one or more of the user input display regions fails to satisfy
one or more of the corresponding validation criteria one or more of the
guidance instructions corresponding to the particular one or more user input
display regions is displayed in one or more altered animation modes (see
Appellants’ independent claims 1, 8, and 15; FF 1; Cf. FF 3; see App. Br. 10
(Ko fails to suggest “changing from the display of guidance instructions in
an initial animation mode to [the] display [of] one or more of the guidance
instructions in an altered animation mode”) (emphasis added)).
While Ko and Brown relate to error messages, Examiner failed to
establish an evidentiary basis on this record to support a conclusion that the
combination of Ko and Brown suggests the display of a plurality of
guidance instructions in an initial animation mode and the subsequent
display of one or more of the guidance instructions in one or more altered
animation modes in response to a user input error as required by Appellants’
independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (FF 2–6).
Appeal 2012-002853
Application 11/790,869

8
Examiner failed to establish that Lui or Wies make up for the
foregoing deficiency in the combination of Ko and Brown.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner fails to
support a conclusion of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, 22, 23, 25–29, 31–34, and
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ko and
Brown is reversed.
The rejection of claims 5, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ko, Brown, and Lui is reversed.
The rejection of claims 24, 30, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ko, Brown, and Wies is reversed.

REVERSED

cdc