Ex Parte Wroblewski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2012

11505207 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FRANK J. WROBLEWSKI
____________

Appeal 2010-007101
Application 11/505,207
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-26, and 28-40. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention provides hover-buttons associated with objects
in a graphical user interface (GUI). When a cursor is moved over an object,
Appeal 2010-007101
Application 11/505,207

2
the object is enlarged and associated buttons become visible. See generally
Spec. ¶¶ 0038-39; Figs. 6-7A. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for interacting with primary and secondary user-
selectable objects in a graphical user interface comprising the steps of:
associating secondary user-selectable objects with primary user-
selectable objects;
displaying secondary user-selectable objects associated with a
respective primary user-selectable object when said respective primary user-
selectable object is selected; and
focusing upon one of said secondary user-selectable objects when a
cursor is proximate of said one of said secondary user-selectable objects,
wherein only one of said secondary user-selectable objects can be enlarged
at a time.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-26, 28-35, and 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by McCormack (US 2006/0156247
A1; July 13, 2006; filed Dec. 30, 2004). Ans. 4-11.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 18, 36, and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over McCormack and Kupka (US 7,164,410 B2;
Jan. 16, 2007; filed July 28, 2003). Id. at 11-13.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that McCormack discloses every recited feature
of claim 1 including focusing upon one of secondary user-selectable objects
(i.e., floating action buttons) when a cursor is proximate to one secondary
object, where only one such object can be enlarged at a time (i.e., when a

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed September
28, 2009 (App. Br.); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 30, 2009
(Ans.); and (3) the Reply Brief filed February 26, 2010 (Reply Br.).
Appeal 2010-007101
Application 11/505,207

3
particular floating action button is specially activated in Figure 4). Ans. 4-5,
13-15.
Appellant argues that McCormack does not focus upon one secondary
user-selectable object when a cursor is proximate one of those objects,
where only one such object can be enlarged at a time, as claimed. App. Br.
7-9; Reply Br. 1-2. Appellant also argues various other recited limitations
summarized below. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3-4.

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that McCormack
discloses:
(1) focusing upon one of the secondary user-selectable objects when a
cursor is proximate one of those objects, where only one such object can be
enlarged at a time, as recited in claim 1?
(2) displaying a sub-menu with tertiary user-selectable objects, where
the sub-menu’s name is displayed over the primary user-selectable object, as
recited in claim 37?
(3) crossing (a) a first threshold on a GUI resulting in displaying
secondary user-selectable objects, and (b) a second threshold on the GUI
resulting in displaying a sub-menu associated with a closest one of the
secondary objects, as recited in claim 12?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19-26, and 28-35
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of representative claim 1 which recites, in pertinent part, focusing
Appeal 2010-007101
Application 11/505,207

4
upon one of secondary user-selectable objects when a cursor is proximate
one of those objects, where only one such object can be enlarged at a time.
As shown in McCormack’s Figure 2A, when the user’s pointer icon 208
(i.e., cursor) enters a “hover over zone” 210, one or more floating action
buttons 212 (“secondary user-selectable objects”) are displayed proximate to
the cursor. McCormack ¶¶ 0035-36; Fig. 2A. Automatically displaying a
floating action button responsive to the cursor’s position, therefore, focuses
upon one of these secondary user-selectable objects when the cursor is
proximate the object. And when the user specially activates a displayed
floating action button, that particular secondary object is enlarged by
displaying its associated, larger context menu 404 shown in Figure 4
responsive to this special activation as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 15
(citing McCormack ¶ 0059; Fig. 4). Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7-9;
Reply Br. 1-2) are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the
claim.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19-26, and 28-35 not separately
argued with particularity.

Claim 37
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 reciting, in
pertinent part, displaying a sub-menu with tertiary user-selectable objects,
where the sub-menu’s name is displayed over the primary user-selectable
object. As the Examiner indicates, after selecting a secondary user-
selectable object, McCormack displays a sub-menu (context menu 404) with
tertiary user-selectable objects associated with the four listed options. Ans.
Appeal 2010-007101
Application 11/505,207

5
11, 15 (citing McCormack ¶¶ 0059-60; Fig. 4). As shown in Figure 4, the
sub-menu’s name (“OPTION #1” . . . “OPTION #4” and associated icons) is
displayed at least partially over the primary user-selectable object, namely,
partially over the hot zone and associated elements as shown in the enlarged
partial detail view of McCormack’s context menu in Figure 4 below:

Partial detail view of McCormack’s context menu in Figure 4
As shown in the region adjacent the context menu’s upper left corner,
the menu is displayed partially over a “hot zone” 312 and its associated
elements—a zone which reasonably corresponds to the primary user-
selectable object according to the Examiner’s position. See Ans. 4 (referring
to hover over zone 210 in connection with the primary user-selectable
object); see also Ans. 5, 11 (same in connection with claims 2-5 and 18).
Accordingly, McCormack’s context menu fully meets the recited sub-menu
in claim 37.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 37.

Appeal 2010-007101
Application 11/505,207

6
Claim 12
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 reciting crossing
(1) a first threshold on a GUI resulting in displaying secondary user-
selectable objects, and (2) a second threshold on the GUI resulting in
displaying a sub-menu associated with a closest one of the secondary
objects. As the Examiner indicates, when the user’s cursor enters a hover
over zone 210, it crosses a first graphical threshold on the interface and
displays floating action buttons responsive to that crossing. Ans. 7 (citing
McCormack ¶ 0047; Fig. 3A). And when the user’s cursor enters the
graphical region associated with a particular floating action button to
specially activate it, the cursor then crosses a second graphical threshold on
the interface that delineates that button’s activation region. See id. (citing
McCormack ¶¶ 0058-59; Fig. 4). Although the user must click a special
mouse button or press a key simultaneously with the mouse button to
specially activate the selected floating action button, nothing in the claim
precludes these manual steps from occurring after the cursor crosses the
second graphical threshold on the interface to select the button. Appellant’s
arguments (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4) are unavailing and not
commensurate with the scope of the claim.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 12.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner finds that McCormack’s primary
user-selectable object (hover over zone) is selected when the cursor hovers
over that object, but that McCormack is silent regarding hovering for a
Appeal 2010-007101
Application 11/505,207

7
predetermined time period. Ans. 11. The Examiner, however, cites Kupka
as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been
obvious. Id. at 12, 16-17.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Kupka is misplaced
because not only does Kupka require some selection action to change a time
associated with the user-selectable object, Kupka is not interested in the
recited range in claim 39. App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 4.

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that McCormack and
Kupka collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) selecting a primary user-selectable object when a cursor hovers
over that object for a predetermined amount of time, as recited in claim 18?
(2) selecting a secondary user-selectable object when a cursor hovers
over that object for a predetermined amount of time within a range of 100ms
to 1000ms, as recited in claim 39?

ANALYSIS
Claims 18, 36, 38, and 40
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 18
reciting selecting a primary user-selectable object when a cursor hovers over
that object for a predetermined time period. The Examiner cites Kupka
merely to show that automatically performing some sort of action responsive
to a cursor hovering over an object for a predetermined time period is known
in the art, and that applying this fundamental teaching to McCormack would
have been obvious. Ans. 11-12, 16-17. We find no error in this position, for
Appeal 2010-007101
Application 11/505,207

8
Kupka teaches that time period adjustment is repeated if the user holds a
stylus or pointing device in position in input field zone 103A—a repetition
that is accelerated if the user continues to hold the pointing device for a
predetermined time period. Kupka, col. 20, l. 60 – col. 21, l. 6; Figs. 7A-7B.
The clear import of this discussion is that positioning a pointing
device in a region associated with an object for a predetermined time period
not only selects that object, but also performs certain associated functions
that are responsive to the amount of time the pointing device is maintained
in the object’s associated region. Applying this technique to McCormack to
select an associated object after a cursor hovers over the object for a
predetermined time, as the Examiner proposes, merely predictably uses prior
art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
And where, as here, if a technique has been used to improve one device
(performing certain functions responsive to the amount of time a pointing
device is maintained in an associated object’s region), and an ordinarily
skilled artisan would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way (selecting an associated object after a cursor hovers over the
object for a predetermined time), using the technique is obvious, unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill. See id.
We are, therefore, not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 18, and claims 36, 38, and 40 not separately argued with particularity.

Claim 39
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 39 (which depends
from claim 38) reciting selecting a secondary user-selectable object when a
Appeal 2010-007101
Application 11/505,207

9
cursor hovers over that object for a predetermined amount of time within a
range of 100ms to 1000ms. We emphasize “secondary” here, for claim 39
differs from a similar limitation in claim 18 discussed above which recites
selecting a primary user-selectable object after hovering over that object for
a predetermined time period. Nevertheless, Appellant’s argument does not
pertain to this distinction, but rather to the particular recited time range
which is said to be non-obvious over McCormack and Kupka. App. Br. 12-
13; Reply Br. 4.
Although the Examiner’s finding that a 2 to 3 second time period of
inactivity as “well within” the recited range (Ans. 17) is puzzling since the
recited range is from 0.1 to 1 second, we nonetheless find no harmful error
in the Examiner’s position that the recited time range would have
nevertheless been obvious. Ans. 12, 17. Although Kupka does not specify a
specific time period for the disclosed predetermined time period noted
above, we nonetheless see no reason why the particular range recited would
not have been an engineering design choice well within the level of
ordinarily skilled artisans and, therefore, an obvious enhancement,
particularly since no criticality has been shown for that range.
We are, therefore, not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 39.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-26, 28-
35, and 37 under § 102, and (2) claims 18, 36, and 38-40 under § 103.

Appeal 2010-007101
Application 11/505,207

10
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-26, and 28-40 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc