Ex Parte Zamoyski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

12321545 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/321,545 01122/2009
51029 7590 09/22/2016
JayM, Brown
JAY BROWN LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 1407
Cary, NC 27512
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Naz Marta Zamoyski
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.
LU08006USU (Zamoyski 9710
1)
EXAMINER
SCHNIREL, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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):
jaybrownlaw@gmail.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAZ MARTA ZAMOYSKI
Appeal2015-002647
Application 12/321,545
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THU A. DANG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--19, and 21-25. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention inputs electronic data by executing commands
responsive to detected orientation of a user's eye toward a portion of a
displayed cursor. See generally Spec. i-fi-1 4--6. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system, comprising:
a visual display;
Appeal2015-002647
Application 12/321,545
an eye-tracking arrangement configured for detecting
orientations of an eye toward the visual display; and
a processor configured for communicating with the visual
display and with the eye-tracking arrangement;
wherein the processor is configured for causing an on-screen
mouse cursor to be displayed on the visual display, the on-
screen mouse cursor having a perimeter, one portion of the on-
screen mouse cursor within the perimeter being dedicated for
executing one cursor command, and another portion of the on-
screen mouse cursor within the perimeter being dedicated for
executing another cursor command that is different than the one
cursor command; and
wherein the processor is configured for executing the one
cursor command in response to a detected orientation of an eye
toward the one portion of the on-screen mouse cursor on the
visual display.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--19, and 21-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bell (US 6,456,262 Bl; Sept. 24,
2002) and Kahn (US 5,844,544; Dec. 1, 1998). Ans. 3-25. 1
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Bell discloses every recited element of claim
1 including (1) displaying an on-screen "mouse cursor," namely icon 76, on
display 68 in Figure 6, and (2) executing a cursor command responsive to
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 30,
2014 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed October 29, 2014
("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed December 24, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2015-002647
Application 12/321,545
detected orientation of an eye toward a portion of the cursor. Ans. 3--4.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Bell lacks the recited other
portion of the cursor dedicated for executing a different cursor command,
the Examiner cites Kahn as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim
would have been obvious. Ans. 4--5.
Appellant argues that neither cited reference causes an on-screen
mouse cursor to be displayed on a visual display. App. Br. 5-13; Reply Br.
2--4. According to Appellant, the plain meaning of "mouse cursor" is a
pointer displayed as a graphical image, where the pointer's movements
correspond to, or "echo," those of a pointing device, such as a mouse. App.
Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3. Based on this interpretation, Appellant contends
that neither Bell's icon 7 6 nor Kahn's keychart 22 is a mouse cursor under
its plain meaning. App. Br. 7-13; Reply Br. 3--4.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Bell and Kahn collectively would have taught or suggested displaying
an on-screen mouse cursor on a visual display?
ANALYSIS
As noted above, this dispute turns on the meaning of "mouse cursor";
therefore, we begin by construing that term.
Appellant's Specification does not define the term "mouse cursor" to
so limit its construction, but does note in paragraph 14 that the displayed
cursor 112 in Figure 1 can be an on-screen computer mouse cursor, and can
3
Appeal2015-002647
Application 12/321,545
have any shape or appearance. Notably, the cursor can be moved from one
point to another, for example, along the path shown by the dashed arrows
123 in Figure 1, responsive to detected orientation of the user's eye. Spec.
iT 16.
Although this description informs our understanding of the recited
mouse cursor, it does not limit its construction to that particular
implementation. We, therefore, construe the term "mouse cursor" with its
plain meaning-a meaning best obtained from recognized computer
dictionaries, not Wikipedia as proffered by Appellant. See App. Br. 6;
Reply Br. 3 (citing Wikipedia definition of "pointer"). Despite its
popularity, Wikipedia is nonetheless a non-peer-reviewed source with
limited probative value. 2
Turning to various computer dictionaries, the term "mouse cursor" is
not explicitly defined, but is nonetheless equated with the term "mouse
pointer," essentially rendering those terms synonymous. See Douglas
Downing et al., BARRON'S DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER & INTERNET TERMS
317 (10th ed. 2009) (noting that a "mouse pointer" is also called a "mouse
cursor"). That dictionary defines "mouse pointer" as "a small symbol on the
screen (usually an arrow) that indicates what the mouse is pointing to, and
moves whenever the mouse is moved." Id.
2 See Bing Shun Liv. Holder, 400 F. App'x. 854, 857 (5th Cir. 2010)
(unpublished) (noting Wikipedia's unreliability and citing Badasa v.
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008)); see also Ex parte Three-
Dimensional Media Group, Ltd., No. 2009-004087, 2010 WL 3017280
(BP AI 2010) (non-precedential), at * 17 ("Wikipedia is generally not
considered to be as trustworthy as traditional sources for several reasons, for
example, because (1) it is not peer reviewed; (2) the authors are unknown;
and (3) apparently anyone can contribute to the source definition").
4
Appeal2015-002647
Application 12/321,545
Another recognized computer dictionary defines the term "mouse
pointer" similarly, namely as "[a] small cursor symbol, normally an arrow,
which can be moved around the [visual display unit] VDU screen by moving
the mouse. It is used to point to and activate icons, buttons, menus and other
interactive screen objects." Dick Pountain, THE PENGUIN CONCISE
DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING 285 (2003) (emphasis added). Similarly,
another computer dictionary defines the term "cursor," in pertinent part, as
"another term for the mouse pointer," and defines "pointer" as "[a] symbol
that appears on the screen and corresponds to the movement of the mouse or
other pointing device." Dan Gookin & Sandra Hardin Gookin, ILLUSTRATED
COMPUTER DICTIONARY FOR DUMMIES 79, 232 (4th ed. 2000).
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner cites Bell for displaying an on-
screen "mouse cursor," namely icon 76, on display 68 in Figure 6. Ans. 3--4.
As Bell explains, icon 7 6 is highlighted responsive to the user gazing at it,
resulting in the display in Figure 7 which enlarges and focuses that icon
relative to the others. Bell, col. 5, 11. 22-35.
Although the user gazing at a single icon to highlight it does not itself
constitute movement along the screen analogous to a mouse cursor as
Appellant indicates (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 3--4), the Examiner's position
is not based solely on gazing at a single icon, but rather gazing at multiple
icons in sequence. See Ans. 26 (noting that Bell's system highlights icon 76
when the user gazes at that icon, and if the user gazes at another icon, that
other icon will be highlighted); see also Ans. 4 (noting that Bell's cursor in
Figure 6 will move left, right, up, or down depending on the user's gaze).
The Examiner makes a similar finding with respect to Kahn, namely
that Kahn highlights different characters in sequence depending on the
5
Appeal2015-002647
Application 12/321,545
user's gaze in step 106 of Figure 6A. See Ans. 27 (citing Kahn, col. 13, 11.
40-63). As with Bell, the Examiner finds that if the user gazes at another
character-based icon in Kahn, it, too, will be highlighted. Ans. 27.
This series of actions, based on the user gazing at different locations
on the screen corresponding to particular icons, effectively causes a cursor to
move across a screen from one icon to another in a manner analogous to
such movements created by a mouse and, therefore, reasonably comports
with displaying a "mouse cursor" under its broadest reasonable
interpretation. That Kahn includes a mouse mode in Figure 7 where not
only particular mouse functions can be visually selected, but also such
functions can be used to select characters in column 15, lines 14 to 31, only
bolsters the Examiner's conclusion that the cited prior art at least suggests
displaying a mouse cursor. Kahn's mouse mode is particularly apposite to
the recited mouse cursor display, especially when considered in light of
Bell's and Kahn's sequential visual icon or character selections and
corresponding cursor movement resulting from these sequential selections.
We reach this conclusion despite claim 1 not requiring cursor
movement as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 26), unlike dependent claim 6
which expressly recites such movement. Nevertheless, to the extent that
Appellant contends that the recited mouse cursor display must continually
display movement at all points along a path from one location to another to
"echo" a pointer's movements along each of those points, including
intermediate points between the pointer's origin and destination (see App.
Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2--4), such arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the claim which recites no such requirement.
6
Appeal2015-002647
Application 12/321,545
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2--4, 6-12, 14--19, and 21-25 not argued separately with
particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--19, and
21-25 under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--19, and 21-
25 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)(l )(iv).
7