Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2021

2019005164 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2021)

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.
14/022,776 09/10/2013 Corinna Paine Proctor RPS920130076USNP(710.251) 1579
58127 7590 01/26/2021
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
HOPE, DARRIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2021 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 CORINNA PAINE PROCTOR
____________________

Appeal 2019-005164
Application 14/022,776
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before LARRY J. HUME, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies
Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005164
Application 14/022,776

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
providing a notification to a user that, in a multi-monitor system, the cursor
is proximate to a predetermined location associated with a boundary
associated with one or more monitors. Spec. ¶ 3. In an embodiment, the
notification may be in the form of a non-visual indication, such as haptic
feedback. Spec. ¶ 18.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is representative (see
Appeal Br. 16; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)) of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in
italics:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving user input altering the location of a cursor within
a display area, said user input being provided to an input device
separate from the display area provided by multiple monitors;
determining a location of the cursor within the display
area;
defining in the display area a boundary associated with one
or more monitors of the multiple monitors;
determining that the location of the cursor is proximate to
a predetermined location associated with the boundary;
responsive to the determining, notifying, using at least one
non-visual notification, a user that the location of the cursor is
associated with an impending transition of the cursor from one
of the multiple monitors to another of the multiple monitors; and
thereafter displaying the cursor on the another monitor of
the multiple monitors.

Appeal 2019-005164
Application 14/022,776

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1–5, 11–15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Fabrick II (US 2005/0007351 A1; Jan. 13,
2005) (“Fabrick”); Haken (US 7,124,374 B1; Oct. 17, 2006); and Mahesh et
al. (US 2010/0023857 A1; Jan. 28, 2010) (“Mahesh”). Final Act. 3–18.
2. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fabrick, Haken, Mahesh, and Serafin et al. (US
2011/0175803 A1; July 21, 2011) (“Serafin”). Final Act. 18–19.
3. Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Fabrick, Haken, Mahesh, and Baudisch et al. (US
2006/0033712 A1; Feb. 16, 2006) (“Baudisch”). Final Act. 20–23.
4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fabrick, Haken, Mahesh, Baudisch, and Brewer et al. (US
5,929,840; July 27, 1999) (“Brewer”). Final Act. 23–24.
5. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fabrick, Haken, Mahesh, and Rydenhag et al. (US
2014/0002375 A1; Jan. 2, 2014) (“Rydenhag”). Final Act. 24–26.

ANALYSIS2
Appellant argues Mahesh fails to teach “responsive to the determining
[that the cursor is proximate to a predetermined location], notifying, using at
least one non-visual notification, a user that the location of the cursor is

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
January 7, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed June 17, 2019 (“Reply
Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 16, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Final
Office Action, mailed August 7, 2018 (“Final Act.”), from which this
Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2019-005164
Application 14/022,776

4
associated with an impending transition of the cursor from one of the
multiple monitors to another of the multiple monitors,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 17–18. Specifically, Appellant asserts Mahesh merely provides a
force feedback notification associated with a region of a display and a
boundary of the region. Appeal Br. 18. However, Appellant argues
Mahesh’s region on a display relates to a single display and does not
correspond to “a transition action of a cursor between multiple displays.”
Appeal Br. 18.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Fabrick teaches, inter alia,
defining a boundary associated with one or more monitors in a multiple
monitor system, and determining that the location of the cursor is proximate
to a predetermined location associated with the boundary. Final Act. 4
(citing Fabrick ¶¶ 40, 44, Fig. 5, Abstract). Further, the Examiner finds
Haken teaches, inter alia, providing a notification to the user. Final Act. 5
(citing Haken, col. 4, ll. 14–19). More particularly, the Examiner explains
that Haken was relied on to teach “responsive to the determining, notifying a
user that the location of the cursor is associated with an impending transition
of the cursor from one of the multiple monitors to another of the multiple
monitors.” Ans. 3–4 (citing Haken, col. 4, ll. 14–19, Fig. 1, Abstract).
Mahesh is relied on by the Examiner to teach a notification being a
non-visual notification (e.g., force feedback). Final Act. 5–6 (citing Mahesh
¶¶ 10–12, 59, 81, Fig. 4); see also Ans. 4–5 (explaining that “Mahesh was
not relied upon to disclose navigating between two separate display screens.
. . . [but rather] providing the non-visual notification in the form of force
feedback to alert a user when a cursor enters and leaves a region”).
Appeal 2019-005164
Application 14/022,776

5
Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination
of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection, as related to the
disputed limitation, relies on the combined teachings of Haken and Mahesh.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error
because, at least, they are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner.
Haken teaches a configuration of attached devices to a principal
system comprising a principal display system. Haken, col. 1, ll. 61–66,
Fig. 1. “As the cursor moves to the edge of the principal display screen it
seamlessly assumes control of the native display and graphical interface on
the docked device.” Haken, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 2. During operation, a
user may select a particular attached device by moving the cursor to the edge
of the principal display in the relative direction of the attached device.
Haken, col. 3, ll. 16–19. As the cursor approaches an edge of the display,
the system determines whether there is an attached device in the indicated
direction and, if so, “transfers the input signal from the mouse 16 to the
pointer input of the GUI software in that device.” Haken, col. 3, ll. 40–45.
When control is transitioned to the attached device (i.e., the cursor is at the
edge of the display), Haken teaches providing a visual notification to the
user. See Haken, col. 4, ll. 3–19.
Appeal 2019-005164
Application 14/022,776

6
Mahesh provides a broad teaching of “a processor configured to
determine a location and pattern of movement of the cursor and provide
force feedback to the user based on the location and pattern of movement of
the cursor to provide a non-visual indication to the user of the location and
pattern of movement of the cursor.” Mahesh ¶ 10. Mahesh describes
configuring a region on a display as a target for force feedback. Mahesh
¶ 31. As the user moves the cursor into or out of the defined region,
Mahesh’s system provides force feedback (i.e., a non-visual indication) to
the user. Mahesh ¶ 12.
Based on our review of Haken and Mahesh, as relied on by the
Examiner, we find a preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s
determination that the combined teachings of Haken and Mahesh teach
“responsive to the determining, notifying, using at least one non-visual
notification, a user that the location of the cursor is associated with an
impending transition of the cursor from one of the multiple monitors to
another of the multiple monitors,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner has not articulated a reason
why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the prior art
references to achieve the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 19. Instead,
Appellant asserts the Examiner merely provides a conclusory statement that
the proposed combination provides “some ambiguous benefit.” Appeal
Br. 20. Appellant argues that the motivation to combine the references is
devoid of a discussion as to why one of skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine the references and how the combination was supposed
to work. Appeal Br. 20.
Appeal 2019-005164
Application 14/022,776

7
As discussed above, Fabrick teaches, inter alia, defining a boundary
associated with one or more monitors in a multiple monitor system, and
determining that the location of the cursor is proximate to a predetermined
location associated with the boundary. Final Act. 4 (citing Fabrick ¶¶ 40,
44, Fig. 5, Abstract). The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to an
ordinarily skilled artisan to incorporate Haken’s notification that the cursor
is nearing a transition from one monitor to another to improve the control of
information displayed across multiple monitors. See Final Act. 5. Further,
the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to replace Haken’s visual notification with the non-visual notification of
Mahesh to “enable[] a user to navigate and be notified of the location and
direction of a cursor without viewing the screen as suggested by Mahesh.”
Ans. 5.
Thus, we find the Examiner provides “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, Appellant has
not provided persuasive argument or evidence that the proposed combination
uses the elements of the references in a way other than their established
functions to achieve predictable results. “The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Further, Appellant does not provide persuasive
evidence or reasoning that the proposed combination would be “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19).
Appeal 2019-005164
Application 14/022,776

8
For the reasons discussed, supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 11 and 20, which recite similar limitations and were not
argued separately. See Appeal Br. 16, 20; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In addition, for similar reasons as discussed above with
respect to the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claims, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–10 and 12–19, which depend directly or
indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 16, 20;
see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 11–15,
20
103 Fabrick, Haken,
Mahesh
1–5, 11–
15, 20

6, 16 103 Fabrick, Haken,
Mahesh, Serafin
6, 16
8, 9, 18, 19 103 Fabrick, Haken,
Mahesh, Baudisch
8, 9, 18,
19

10 103 Fabrick, Haken,
Mahesh, Baudisch,
Brewer
10
7, 17 103 Fabrick, Haken,
Mahesh, Rydenhag
7, 17
Appeal 2019-005164
Application 14/022,776

9
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED