Ex Parte Verma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2015

12057950 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2015)

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.
12/057,950 03/28/2008 Dinesh Chandra Verma YOR920050369US2 2244
7590 02/03/2015
Whitham, Curtis, & Christofferson, P.C.
Suite 340
11491 Sunset Hills Road
Reston, VA 20190
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, MICHAEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2015 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 DINESH CHANDRA VERMA and PARIDHI VERMA
___________

Appeal 2012-007587
Application 12/057,950
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of
claims 1–3, 5–11, 13–17, 19, and 20, all remaining claims of the
application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 In this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed December
6, 2011), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 4, 2012), and the
original Specification (“Spec.,” filed March 28, 2008).
Appeal 2012-007587
Application 12/057,950

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to measuring ease of use of software.
Spec. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A computer implemented method for quantitative
determination of software ease of use, comprising the steps of:
using sensors to collect biometric data from each of a
plurality of users engaged in using a software application
operating on a computer or computer network;
monitoring and recording changes in the biometric data
which occur while the software application is being used by
each of the plurality of users;
combining recorded changes in the biometric data for
each user into quantitative metrics;
averaging quantitative metrics across the plurality of
users;
compiling the averaged quantitative metrics into a single
quantitative measure for an ease of use index for the software
application; and
providing an output as a user-independent index for ease-
of-use of the software application.

THE REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5–11, 13–17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Franz (US 6,040,821) and Kotzin (US
7,088,220 B2).

Appeal 2012-007587
Application 12/057,950

3

ISSUE
Appellants’ arguments present the dispositive issue: Has the
Examiner erred by finding Franz teaches or suggests “averaging quantitative
metrics across the plurality of users,” as recited in independent claim 1?

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Franz teaches the averaging
step at column 23, lines 20–23. Ans. 11. Franz there discloses storing
different sets of parameters for cursor tracking (in response to user force on
a keycap), “perhaps one [set] for each of several users.” Franz col. 23, ll.
21–22. We agree with Appellants that Franz fails to teach or reasonably
suggest averaging the metrics across a plurality of users. App. Br. 28.
Appellants contend the claimed averaging across a plurality of users would
make no sense in the context of Franz where cursor tracking responsive to
keycap forces is customized for each user’s preference. Id. (see, e.g., Franz
col. 2, ll. 22–26). We agree. Appellants further contend, in Franz, “one
wants to have the cursor tracking device perform in the desired manner [(for
each user)], not in a manner averaged among several users.” Id. We agree.
The Examiner also points to Franz column 11, lines 9–11 as explicitly
teaching the claimed averaging. Ans. 26. However, we find no teaching or
suggestion there regarding averaging the biometric derived metrics across a
plurality of users. Rather, the cited portion of Franz appears to describe
some form of calibration or verification to determine whether the keyboard
force sensors are operating within an expected range.
Thus, we find the Examiner erred by finding Franz teaches or suggests
“averaging quantitative metrics across the plurality of users,” as recited in
Appeal 2012-007587
Application 12/057,950

4

independent claim 1. Independent claims 7 and 15 include a similar
limitation and are rejected for essentially the same reasons as claim 1.
Therefore, we also find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 5–11,
13–17, 19, and 20 for the same reason as claim 1.
Appellants raise additional issues in their Appeal Brief. We are
persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue discussed supra, which
is dispositive as to the rejection of all claims. We, therefore, do not reach
the additional issues.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5–11,
13–17, 19, and 20 is reversed.

REVERSED

gvw