Ex Parte Tijssen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2018

14663265 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/663,265 03/19/2015
108982 7590 08/29/2018
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific A venue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Remon Tijssen
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.
P5100-US 8331
EXAMINER
LIU, GORDON G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2018 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. 1
Appeal2018-001979
Application 14/663,265
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-22. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and system for "controlling user
interface shape interaction by a computing device." Spec. ,r 3. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of controlling user interface shape interaction by
a computing device, the method comprising:
1 Remon Tijssen and William T. Ruby are listed as the inventors.
2 Claims 10 and 19 have been cancelled. App. Br. 20, 23.
Appeal2018-001979
Application 14/663,265
displaying, by the computing device, a shape in a
graphical user interface, the shape described using a
plurality of points, each of the points having an
associated radius;
detecting, by the computing device, an input involving
modification of the associated radius of one point of the
plurality of points;
determining, by the computing device, whether the
modification of the associated radius of the one point
causes an intersection of the associated radius of at least
one other point of the plurality of points neighboring the
one point;
responsive to the determining that the modification
causes the intersection, modifying, by the computing
device, the associated radius of the at least one other
point of the plurality of points neighboring the one point
such that the associated radius of the one point is
maintained and intersection does not occur; and
displaying, by the computing device, the shape as having
the modified associated radius of the one point.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1--4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14--18, and 20-22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cao et al.
(US 2014/0311271 Al; published Oct. 23, 2014) (hereinafter, "Cao") in
view of Rapp et al. (US 2011/007 4697 A 1; published Mar. 31, 2011)
(hereinafter, "Rapp"). Final Act. 5.
Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Cao, Rapp, and Jensen et al. (US
2
Appeal2018-001979
Application 14/663,265
8,279,239 Bl; published Oct. 2, 2012) (hereinafter, "Jensen"). Final Act.
25.
Claims 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Cao, Rapp, and Plichta et al. (US
8,436,821 Bl; published May 7, 2013) (hereinafter, "Plichta"). Final Act.
26.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Cao teaches "displaying, by the computing
device, a shape in a graphical user interface," because Cao's Fig. 13 "shows
a top perspective view of the manipulator, and it also accepts user inputs,
such as a user may get an input by pushing some physical buttons on
motors." Final Act. 3, 5. The Examiner also finds that Cao
teaches a graphical user interface in Fig. 13, which shows a top
perspective view of the manipulator, it is a theoretical graphical
interface showing a complex system shape, and it also accepts
user inputs, such as a user may get an input by pushing some
physical buttons on motors.
Ans. 3 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that Cao fails to teach "displaying, by the computing
device, a shape in a graphical user interface" as recited in claims 1 and 8
(and similarly recited in claim 18) because Cao "describes a manipulator
( e.g., a robotic arm) that may, at some level, be operated using a
conventional computer," but not a "graphical user interface displaying
shapes." App. Br. 6-7. We agree with Appellant.
The broadest reasonable interpretation differs from the broadest
possible interpretation. In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed.
Cir. 201 7); see also MPEP § 2111 ("The broadest reasonable interpretation
does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning
3
Appeal2018-001979
Application 14/663,265
given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary
meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in
the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in
the specification and drawings.").
In this case, the Examiner conflates the broadest possible
interpretation with the broadest reasonable interpretation. In particular, the
Examiner's finding that Cao teaches a "theoretical graphical user interface"
is based primarily on figures 4 and 13 and paragraph 156 of Cao. Final Act.
5; Ans. 3. Figures 4 and 13 of Cao each show top perspective views ofa
manipulator, which is a type of robotic arm. Cao ,r,r 90, 99. Paragraph 156
of Cao teaches the use of a planar joint for a planar displacement subgroup
of a three Degree of Freedom translational parallel manipulators. Cao ,r 3,
153. Stated differently, Cao does not show a) displaying, by the computing
device, a shape orb) a graphical user interface. Cao Figs. 4, 13, ,r 156.
Rather, Cao merely depicts an actual robotic arm (Figs. 4 and 13) that is not
shown on a graphical user interface.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of (1) independent claims 1, 8, and 18;
and (2) dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-17, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9, 11-18, and
20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
4