Ex Parte Sundstrom

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2014

11856989 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/856,989 09/18/2007 Robert J. Sundstrom I497/US 1077
49277 7590 02/27/2014
SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
EXAMINER
VU, THANH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT J. SUNDSTROM
____________

Appeal 2011-012733
Application1 11/856,989
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and ULRIKE W. JENKS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to a
method of linking a cursor to a hotspot in a hypervideo stream. The
Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated and obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies Scenera Technologies, LLC as the Real Party in
Interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-012733
Application 11/856,989

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to the Specification:
For some users, positioning the cursor 100 over a
stationary graphical display element, such as an icon or
hypertext link, can be difficult. In some instances, a user may
exhibit diminished visual or physical abilities, or lack training
and practice to correctly position the cursor 100. This difficulty
is exacerbated in a hypervideo stream because elements
captured in video clips, and their associated hotspots, are
typically moving, and even if the element itself is physically
stationary, the camera may be panning or zooming, thereby
resulting in perceived movement.
(Spec. 4: ¶ 0008.) “[I]naccurate cursor positioning can result in mistakenly
activating a hotspot associated with another element. With hypervideos, this
mistake is particularly frustrating because the video stream continues for a
specified time” (Spec. 4: ¶ 0010). “By logically linking the cursor to the
hotspot, the user has time to consider whether to activate the hotspot without
needing to manually track the element while it moves” (Spec. 24-25:
¶ 0063).
Claims 1-22 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and
reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for automatically linking a cursor to a hotspot
in a hypervideo stream, wherein the hypervideo stream
comprises a plurality of video frames that are associated with at
least one user selectable hotspot, the method comprising:
establishing an association between a selectable hotspot
in a first activation region of a first video frame received for
presentation in a video presentation space and a cursor when a
first position of the cursor is within the first activation region
corresponding to the selectable hotspot;
receiving, for presentation in the video presentation
Appeal 2011-012733
Application 11/856,989

3
space, a second video frame including the selectable hotspot in
a second activation region of the second video frame, wherein
the second activation region is different from the first activation
region;
determining that a second position of the cursor is outside
of the second activation region of the second video frame; and
responsive to the determination, presenting the second
video frame with a visual indicator associating the second
position of the cursor with the second activation region based
on the association between the cursor and the selectable
hotspot.

The Examiner has rejected the claims as follows:
I. claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Mostyn;2 and
II. claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mostyn in view of Wistendahl.3

The Issue: Anticipation
The Examiner takes the position that Mostyn disclosed all the
elements recited in the independent claims (Ans. 4-5, see also 8).
Appellant contends that “Mostyn fails to disclose or even suggest the
recitation of a ‘visual indicator’ at all, much less the recitation . . . [of] a
visual indicator associating the second position of the cursor with the second
activation region based on the association between the cursor and the
selectable hotspot” (App. Br. 16-17) (internal quotation omitted).

2 Michael P. Mostyn, US 6,462,763 B1, issued Oct. 8, 2002.
3 Douglass A. Wistendahl et al., US 5,708,845, issued Jan. 13, 1998.
App
App

supp
the d

Find

anim

eal 2011-0
lication 11
The issu
ort the Ex
isclosure o
ings of Fa
FF 1. M
ated menu
FF 2. M
[C]ruise
this emb
705, dia
about cr
and 720
12733
/856,989
e is: Does
aminer’s c
f Mostyn
ct
ostyn Fig.
in a sequ
ostyn in F
ship 705
odiment, w
log box 3
uise ship
, cruise sh
the prepon
onclusion
?
7, reprodu
ence of fra
ig. 7, repro
appears to
hen a us
25 appear
705 to the
ip 705 g
4
derance o
that the cl
ced below
mes.
duced abo
be at a d
er places c
s providin
user. In
ets larger
f the evide
aims are a
, shows a
ve, shows
istance in
ursor 300
g addition
subseque
and large
nce of rec
nticipated
n illustrati
:
frame 710
on cruise
al inform
nt frames
r giving i
ord
based on
on of an
. In
ship
ation
715,
t the

Appeal 2011-012733
Application 11/856,989

5
appearance that it is coming towards the user. By employing
the present invention, static cursor 300 continues to provide the
user with dialog box 325 despite the fact that cruise ship 325 is
changing position, size, perspective, etc. Therefore, the moving
hotspot that lies within the outline of cruise ship 705 is being
tracked by static cursor 300. Sail boat 725 also changes
position, size, and perspective as one moves from frame 710, to
frame 715, to frame 720. A similar dialog box 325 results
when a user places cursor 300 on sail boat 725. It is also
possible to have sail boat 725 appear to sail in front of cruise
ship 705 at which point, if the sail boat 725 sailed under the
static cursor 300 location, the dialog box 325 would switch
content to show details associated with the sail boat 725.
(Mostyn, col. 8, ll. 47-65, See Ans. generally.)

Principle of Law
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden … of presenting a prima
facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
To anticipate a reference must expressly or inherently disclose “within
the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but
also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in
the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371
(2008).

Analysis
Appellant contends that “Mostyn fails to disclose or even suggest the
recitation of a ‘visual indicator’ at all, much less the recitation . . . [of] a
visual indicator associating the second position of the cursor with the second
Appeal 2011-012733
Application 11/856,989

6
activation region based on the association between the cursor and the
selectable hotspot” (App. Br. 16-17) (internal quotation omitted).
In Mostyn, when the static cursor 300 in window 710 (FF 1) is over a
hotspot, the dialog box 325 provides additional information about the cruise
ship (FF 2). We agree with the Examiner’s position that this reasonably
meets the limitation of “establishing an association between a selectable
hotspot in a first activation region of a first video frame received for
presentation in a video presentation space and a cursor when a first position
of the cursor is within the first activation region corresponding to the
selectable hotspot” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 4).
Mostyn teaches that as long as the cursor is located over the hotspot
there is a link with the dialog box 325. “[S]tatic cursor 300 continues to
provide the user with dialog box 325 despite the fact that cruise ship 325 is
changing position, size, perspective, etc.” (FF 2). Here, the cruise ship
appears to be getting larger as is the “hotspot that lies within the outline of
cruise ship 705 [and] is being tracked by static cursor 300” (FF 2). The
converse applies if the cruise ship is moving away: the ship gets smaller and
thereby the hotspot associated with the ship also gets smaller. The change in
size and position of the hotspot reasonably meets the limitation of
“receiving, for presentation in the video presentation space, a second video
frame including the selectable hotspot in a second activation region of the
second video frame, wherein the second activation region is different from
the first activation region” (Ans. 4-5).
We also agree with the Examiner’s position that the dialog box 325 is
a visual indicator (Ans. 10; see also FF 1.) Specifically, “dialog box 325
(i.e. visual indicator) is continuously display[ing] additional information that
Appeal 2011-012733
Application 11/856,989

7
is associated with the moving hotspot when the position of the cursor is
changed from one position to another position relative to the moving
hotspot.” (Ans. 10.)
The Examiner takes the position that Mostyn reads on the limitation
“of determining that a second position of the cursor is outside of the second
activation region of the second video frame” citing Fig. 7 in support
(Ans. 9). Specifically, the Examiner finds that “[t]he position of the cursor
within the video frame is tracked to determine whether the cursor is within a
moving hotspot of the video frames.” (Ans. 10.)
Mostyn disclosed that other dialog boxes similar to dialog box 325
appear upon positioning of the cursor over a different hotspot (FF 2). In
Mostyn’s example, “[i]t is also possible to have sail boat 725 appear to sail
in front of cruise ship 705 at which point, if the sail boat 725 sailed under the
static cursor 300 location, the dialog box 325 would switch content to show
details associated with the sail boat 725.” (FF 2 (emphasis added).)
We agree that moving the cursor over to the sail boat, or having the
sail boat move in front of the cruise ship, as suggested by the Examiner
would meet the “determination limitation” as required by the claims.
Mostyn disclosed that moving the cursor from one hotspot to another region
having a different hotspot is shown in the dialog box 325 because the
content of the box changes (FF 2).
However, what is missing from Mostyn, and the Examiner’s
explanation, is a showing that upon determining a second position of the
cursor the limitation of “presenting the second video frame with a visual
indicator associating the second position of the cursor with the second
activation region based on the association between the cursor and the
Appeal 2011-012733
Application 11/856,989

8
selectable hotspot.” That is the Examiner has not established that Mostyn
provides that “the selectable hotspot” in this limitation is the same hotspot
that was associated between the cursor and a hotspot in the first activation
frame. Mostyn disclosed that the sail boat sailing in front of the cruise ship
changes the information in the dialog box (FF 2), this means that the original
association between the hotspot in the first frame, associated with the cruise
ship, and the association with the cruise ship in subsequent frames has been
lost. Thus, the change in information presented in dialog box 325 indicates
that the association between “a selectable hotspot in a first activation region
of a first video frame” and the cursor in the second activation region is not
linking the same hotspot as required by the claims. Anticipation requires a
showing of all claimed limitations. Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371.
The preponderance of evidence on this record fails to support
Examiner’s finding that Mostyn teaches Appellant’s claimed invention. The
rejection of claim 1-7, 10-16, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Mostyn is reversed. Because the Examiner has presented no
reasonable alternative rationale based on Mostyn that shows the visual
indicator remains associated with the cruise ship even when the sail boat
sails in front of the cruise ship we reverse the rejection over Mostyn.

The Issue: Obviousness
This rejection relies on the underlying anticipation rejection of
claims 1 and 14 over Mostyn. Having reversed the rejection of claims 1 and
14 over Mostyn above, we necessarily reverse this obviousness rejection
over claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 further including Wistendahl, because the
Appeal 2011-012733
Application 11/856,989

9
Examiner has not explained how the deficiencies in Mostyn with respect to
the underlying claims are cured by the teachings of Wistendahl.

SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Mostyn.
We reverse the rejection of claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mostyn in view of Wistendahl.

REVERSED

cdc