Bose, Raja et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 9, 2020

2019001891 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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.
12/771,520 04/30/2010 Raja Bose 042933/388707 1895
10949 7590 12/09/2020
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
TAN, ALVIN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2020 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAJA BOSE
and JÖRG BRAKENSIEK
____________

Appeal 2019-001891
Application 12/771,520
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FENICK, 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, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–13, 15, 16, and 18–25,
which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b)(1).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Nokia Technologies Oy as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001891
Application 12/771,520

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates generally to “inter-device
communications technology” and, more particularly, to “providing
interoperability between devices, such as touch screen devices and
non-touch remote environments.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Of the claims on appeal, claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
(emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
maintaining a terminal session between a server device
and a client device in which the client device emulates at least a
portion of a display generated at the server device;
receiving an indication of one or more input mechanisms
of the client device, an associated range of values, and a
functional category of each input mechanism;
in response to receiving the indication of the input
mechanisms, the associated range of values, and the functional
category, generating a mapping by mapping touch events on the
server device to actuation of respective input mechanisms based
upon the functional category of each input mechanism and the
associated range of values;
accessing the mapping between touch events on the server
device and actuation of respective input mechanisms of the client
device, wherein the mapping of the touch events and the
actuation of the respective input mechanisms is based on the
associated range of values;
interpreting one or more control signals provided
responsive to actuation of an input mechanism based upon the
mapping, wherein the input mechanism is a non-touch device
configured to be mechanically moved or depressed to provide an
indicated value of the mapped associated range of values; and
Appeal 2019-001891
Application 12/771,520

3
causing a user interface state of the server device to be
updated based on the actuation of the input mechanism of the
client device and the indicated value of the associated range of
values based on the actuation of the input mechanism and the
mapping.
Appeal Br. 23–24 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–13, 15, 16, 18–23,
and 25 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Forutanpour2 in view of Howard.3 Final Act. 4–11.
The Examiner rejects claim 24 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Forutanpour in view of Howard and
OnMouseWheel.4 Final Act. 11–12.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–13, 15, 16, 18–23,
and 25 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Forutanpour in view of Howard and Dupont.5 Final Act. 12–13.

2 Forutanpour et al., US 2011/0066971 A1 (published Mar. 17, 2011).
3 Howard et al., US 2008/0215240 A1 (pub. Sept. 4, 2008).
4 The onmousewheel event of JavaScript, javascriptkit.com (1997-2008)
(accessed Aug. 22, 2017), available at https://web.archive.org/web/
20091214102546/http://www.javascriptkit.com/javatutors/
onmousewheel.shtml (“OnMouseWheel”).
5 Andrew Dupont, Painfully obvious: Pseudo-custom events in
Prototype 1.6, andrewdupont.net (Nov. 7, 2007) (accessed Mar. 1, 2016),
available at https://web.archive.org/web/20071110225603/
http://www.andrewdupont.net/2007/11/07/pseudo-custom-events-in-
prototype-16 (“Dupont”).
Appeal 2019-001891
Application 12/771,520

4
OPINION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–13, 15, 16, 18–23, and 25 Rejected as Being
Unpatentable over Forutanpour and Howard; and Claim 24 Rejected as
Being Unpatentable over Forutanpour, Howard, and OnMouseWheel
Appellant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest
in response to receiving the indication of the input
mechanisms, the associated range of values, and the functional
category, generating a mapping by mapping touch events on the
server device to actuation of respective input mechanisms based
upon the functional category of each input mechanism and the
associated range of values
as recited in independent claims 1 and 16 and similarly recited in claim 8.
Appeal Br. 12, 23–24 (Claims App.). Specifically, Appellant argues that
neither Forutanpour nor Howard teaches or suggests that a mapping is
generated in response to receiving the indication of the input mechanisms,
the associated range of values, and the functional category. Id. at 12–13.
The Examiner relies upon Forutanpour for the “in response to”
limitation. See Ans. 13–15, Final Act. 3 (“Forutanpour teaches that the user
can make inputs on the master or slave to instruct the system as to how the
application is supposed to be mapped.”) (citing Forutanpour ¶¶ 40, 82, 92).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Forutanpour discloses that “the Master
Helper App determines the slave[’]s capabilities (204) before the user
(optionally) defines view portions (208) to be mapped and the display modes
are negotiated (224).” Ans. 13–14 (citing Forutanpour Fig. 8, ¶¶ 80, 82,
91–92). Thus, according to the Examiner, the combination of Forutanpour
and Howard teaches or suggests that “‘[g]enerating a mapping’ happens
after an ‘indication of the input mechanism and associated range of values.’”
Id. at 13. We understand the Examiner’s position to be that Forutanpour’s
Appeal 2019-001891
Application 12/771,520

5
step 204 (Master Helper App TSR Locates Slave Devices And Determines
Their Capabilities) corresponds to “receiving the indication of the input
mechanisms . . . and the functional category” as claimed,6 and steps 208
(User Defines View Portions) and 224 (Master And Slave Devices Negotiate
Display Mode) correspond to “generating a mapping” as claimed. See
Forutanpour Fig. 8; Appeal Br. 14.
We disagree with the Examiner that Forutanpour teaches or suggests
that “generating a mapping” occurs in steps 208 or 224. In Forutanpour’s
step 208, “the master device may receive user inputs defining the portions of
the application interface that are to be displayed on a slave device” so that
“[t]he user may then define certain rectangular marquees within the target
application instance 134 that are to be displayed on the slave device.”
Forutanpour ¶ 80. In step 224, “the master and slave devices may negotiate
the particular display mode,” which “may include setting the proportions of
the display area available on the slave device, setting the refresh rate
between the devices, and determining whether and which window events
will be relayed from the slave device to the master device.” Id. ¶ 82. We
agree with Appellant that Forutanpour does not teach in this negotiation of a
display mode the generation of a mapping from touch events to actuation of
respective input mechanisms, but only the selection of an existing display
mode. Id. ¶¶ 43–45, 80–82; see Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 3–4.
The Examiner also cites paragraph 92 of Forutanpour in finding that
Forutanpour teaches that “input events may be gathered from push buttons
or touch events depending on the type and capabilities of the device being

6 The Examiner relies upon Howard for the “associated range of values”
limitation. Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 5–6, 14–16.
Appeal 2019-001891
Application 12/771,520

6
used,” and that “[t]hese inputs are mapped or translated to events on the
target application.” Final Act. 6 (citing Forutanpour ¶ 92, Fig. 12); see also
id. at 5 (citing Forutanpour ¶¶ 40, 82; Fig. 2B); Ans. 14. Forutanpour
discloses
At block 368 the master helper app 150 may receive the input
event and determine how the received coordinates correspond to
the target application 134 based on the stored information
mapping the pixels in the buffer of the hidden window 126 to the
user-defined application portions. At block 372 the master
helper app 150 may send a message to the master window
manager 120 including the input event type and the translated
coordinates.
Forutanpour ¶ 92. We agree with Appellant that Forutanpour discloses
accessing and using a stored mapping of pixels to translate the input events
for the target application, rather than the generation of a mapping. See
Appeal Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 5–6.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the combination of
Forutanpour and Howard fails to teach or suggest that the mapping is
generated “in response to receiving the indication of the input mechanisms,
the associated range of values, and the functional category,” as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 16 and dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7,
10–13, 15, 18–23, and 25 as being unpatentable over Forutanpour and
Howard. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claim 24, which depends from claim 1, as being unpatentable
over Forutanpour, Howard, and OnMouseWheel.
Appeal 2019-001891
Application 12/771,520

7
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–13, 15, 16, 18–23, and 25 Rejected as Being
Unpatentable over Forutanpour, Howard, and Dupont
In an “alternative rejection” of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–13, 15, 16, 18–
23, and 25, the Examiner additionally cites Dupont for the “associated range
of values” limitation recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 16. Final
Act. 12–13. The Examiner does not rely upon Dupont for the “in response
to” limitation discussed above, and, on this record, Dupont does not cure the
deficiency of Forutanpour and Howard with respect to that limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–13, 15, 16, 18–23, and 25 as being unpatentable over
Forutanpour, Howard, and Dupont.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–13, 15, 16, and
18–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6–8,
10–13, 15, 16,
18–23, 25
103(a) Forutanpour, Howard 1, 3, 4, 6–8,
10–13, 15, 16,
18–23, 25
24 103(a) Forutanpour, Howard,
OnMouseWheel
24
Appeal 2019-001891
Application 12/771,520

8
1, 3, 4, 6–8,
10–13, 15, 16,
18–23, 25
103(a) Forutanpour, Howard,
Dupont
1, 3, 4, 6–8,
10–13, 15, 16,
18–23, 25
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 6–8,
10–13, 15, 16,
18–25

REVERSED