Hill, Peter Frank.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 6, 2020

14472017 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2020)

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.
14/472,017 08/28/2014 Peter Frank Hill SPARC.684C1 7643
79502 7590 01/06/2020
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
2040 Main Street
Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LE V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/06/2020 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):
SEAZN.Admin@knobbe.com
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER FRANK HILL
Appeal 2019-000872
Application 14/472,017
Technology Center 2100

Before J. JOHN LEE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–17, and 22–24.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Amazon
Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 7 and 18–21 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 16–18.
Appeal 2019-000872
Application 14/472,017

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a system that
adjusts the size of an interactive object in a graphical user interface based on
multiple users’ interaction with the object, e.g., the size of the object is
increased when multiple users are detected to have zoomed in on the object
to enhance visibility.3 Spec. ¶ 24, Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
programmatically by a touch target modification system
that comprises one or more computing devices:
receiving and storing user interaction data reported by
each of a plurality of user devices having touch screens, the user
interaction data specifying user interactions with a network-
accessible page on the user devices, the network accessible page
including a user-selectable display element, the user interactions
including at least (1) zoom interactions in which users zoom-in
on the page, and (2) selection actions in which users select the
user-selectable display element;
detecting, based on a programmatic analysis of the user
interaction data, a problem experienced by users in selecting the
user-selectable display element, wherein detecting the problem
comprises detecting a recurring pattern in which users zoom-in
on a portion of the page containing the user-selectable display
element prior to selecting the user-selectable display element;
and

3 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed August 28,
2014 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed December
15, 2017; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed June 4, 2018; (4) the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 21, 2018; and (5) the Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed November 12, 2018.
Appeal 2019-000872
Application 14/472,017

3
selecting, based on the detected problem, an adjustment to
be made to a touch target associated with the user-selectable
display element to facilitate selection of the user-selectable
display element, the adjustment including a modification to a size
of the touch target relative to sizes of other display elements on
the page.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nurmi4 (US 2008/0295018 A1, published Nov. 27,
2008), Gordon (US 2012/0278725 A1, published Nov. 1, 2012), Fujioka
(US 2010/0281408 A1, published Nov. 4, 2010), and Seliger (US
2013/0246904 A1, published Sept. 19, 2013). Final Act. 3–8.
Claims 2–5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nurmi, Gordon, Fujioka, Seliger, and Anderson (US
2004/0095400 A1, published May 20, 2004). Id. at 8–11.
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nurmi, Gordon, Fujioka, Seliger, and Ko (US
2002/0112082 A1, published Aug. 15, 2002). Id. at 11–12.
Claims 9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nurmi, Gordon, Fujioka, Seliger, and Armstrong (US
2012/0169613 A1, published July 5, 2012). Id. at 12–13.
Claims 11 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nurmi, Gordon, Fujioka, Seliger, Dal Lago (US
2009/0031426 A1, published Jan. 29, 2009), and Kim (US 2013/0305174
A1, published Nov. 14, 2013). Id. at 13–14.

4 All citations to the references use the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-000872
Application 14/472,017

4
Claims 22–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nurmi, Gordon, Fujioka, Seliger, Ko, and Armstrong. Id.
at 14–16.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
OPINION
Appellant contends the Examiner improperly combined Nurmi and
Gordon in rejecting independent claims 1 and 13. Appeal Br. 5, 10; Reply
Br. 2–3, 8–9. Specifically, Appellant argues Nurmi’s “objective is to restore
the zoom level . . . previously used by that particular user when viewing the
same page” and, so, it would not have been obvious to combine Nurmi and
Gordon in order to set the zoom level for that user based on the zoom levels
of other users. Reply Br. 2–3, 8–9; Appeal Br. 5, 10.
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner relies on
(Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 15) Nurmi’s description of storing a user’s “zoom
history” such that “[w]hen the user subsequently visits a web page,” the web
page browser “automatically sets the zoom control to the previous zoom
level” used by the user (Nurmi ¶¶ 61–62). The Examiner also relies on
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 15) Gordon’s description of aggregating “interactions,
events, and other behavior and activities started, stopped, completed, made,
or taken by users 116 as they engage with [a] user interface” (Gordon ¶ 151)
(emphasis omitted). Based on those descriptions, the Examiner determines
that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify
Nurmi with Gordon because “a larger pool of users provides validation and
more accurate data.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner further elaborates that
Appeal 2019-000872
Application 14/472,017

5
it has been known for many years that the accuracy of
recommendation engines and prediction of users’ intent increase
as the number of users and users’ data increase and, further, as
with any scientific experiment, the margin of error decreases
when more data are collected. Therefore, common sense
teach[es] us that the probability that data is less accurate with
more data is unlikely.
Ans. 15.
Although we understand that there are cases in which accuracy is
increased by gathering more data, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain
why that technique would apply to and motivate the modification of Nurmi
with Gordon. Nurmi replicates past interactions that a specific user has had
with a web page for that user’s future convenience, e.g., “if the user
periodically visits a web page containing airline or train schedules . . . the
user need not manually re-size/zoom the web page at each visit as the user is
automatically provided with the last zoom level used on that particular web
page.” Nurmi ¶ 64; see id. ¶¶ 29, 81–83. That is, Nurmi sets webpage
preferences for a particular user based on that user’s previous interactions
with that webpage. The Examiner does not explain why gathering data from
“a larger pool of users” results in “validation and more accurate data” for
that specific user’s particular webpage preferences. In particular, what is
missing from the Examiner’s Final Action and Answer (see Ans. 15; Final
Act. 4) is any explanation addressing Appellant’s argument that using other
user’s interactions “would not provide validation or improved accuracy”
when adjusting webpage preferences for a particular user, e.g., the zoom
level that particular user prefers (Appeal Br. 5, 10).
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record not to sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 over the
Appeal 2019-000872
Application 14/472,017

6
stated combination of Nurmi and Gordon. Because we agree with at least
one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits
of Appellant’s other arguments (see Appeal Br. 5–13). Dependent claims 2–
6, 8–12, 14–17, and 22–24 stand with their respective independent claims.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–17,
and 22–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 10, 12,
13
103(a) Nurmi, Gordon,
Fujioka, Seliger
1, 6, 10, 12,
13
2–5, 14 103(a) Nurmi, Gordon,
Fujioka, Seliger,
Anderson
2–5, 14
8, 16 103(a) Nurmi, Gordon,
Fujioka, Seliger,
Ko
8, 16
9, 15 103(a) Nurmi, Gordon,
Fujioka, Seliger,
Armstrong
9, 15
11, 17 103(a) Nurmi, Gordon,
Fujioka, Seliger,
Dal Lago, Kim
11, 17
22–24 103(a) Nurmi, Gordon,
Fujioka, Seliger,
Ko, Armstrong
22–24
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–17,
22–24

REVERSED