David Chin

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 13, 2021

2020002291 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 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.
13/864,281 04/17/2013 David H. Chin 00092.00003CIP2 3151
98262 7590 09/13/2021
David E. Crites
15900 Rochin Terrace
Los Gatos, CA 95032
EXAMINER
MISHLER, ROBIN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2021 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):
critesd@umich.edu
davidcrites@frontier.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte DAVID H. CHIN

Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281
Technology Center 2600

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–8, 11–13, 15–19, and 25–27.2,3,4
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the
Inventor, David H. Chin. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 3, 9, 10, 14, and 20–24 were canceled. Final Act. 1.
3 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Final Rejection mailed July 17,
2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed October 11, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 2, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed January 29, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
4 This application was previously subject to an appeal (Appeal No. 2017-
008309, decided February 22, 2018).
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

2
INVENTION
The present invention relates to methods for “sharing gestures among
multiple electronic devices” by “accepting a first applied gesture on a first
electronic device,” “generating a shared gesture by transmitting the first
applied gesture to a server,” “associating the shared gesture with an
associated electronic device,” and “generating a local gesture by copying the
shared gesture from the server to the associated electronic device.” Abstract.
Claim 12 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below.
12. A method comprising:
accepting a first applied gesture at a first location on a
first touch-receptive surface of a first electronic device;
storing, on a server, a shared gesture and a first datum
that identifies the first electronic device wherein the first datum
is not stored solely to facilitate temporary communicative
coupling with the first electronic device;
associating, on the server, the shared gesture with the
first datum, wherein the associating provides that the shared
gesture controls an access to a first locked operating state on the
first electronic device;
comparing the applied gesture with the shared gesture;
and
unlocking the first locked operating state of the first
electronic device when the comparing determines that the
applied gesture mimics the shared gesture.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

3
Name Reference Date
Drader et al. US 2012/0191993 A1 July 26, 2012
Ouyang et al. US 2013/0074014 A1 Mar. 21, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2–3.
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being
indefinite. Final Act. 3–4.
Claims 1, 2,5 4–8, 11–13, 15–19, and 25–27 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang in view of Drader.
Final Act. 4–8.
OPINION
§ 112(a) Rejection of Claims 12 and 25
The Examiner finds claim 12’s limitation of “the first datum is not
stored solely to facilitate a temporary communicative coupling with the first
electronic device” is “a negative limitation which does not appear to have
support in the Specification.” Final Act. 2.
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s § 112(a) rejection, asserting that
paragraphs 17 and 18 in the Specification support the disputed limitation of
claim 12. Appeal Br. 10–11. In particular, Appellant argues
[in paragraph 17 of the Specification] the inventor clearly
demonstrates possession of “facilitat[ing] a temporary
communicative coupling with the first electronic device.”
. . .

5 Although claim 2 is not listed in the statement of the § 103 rejection on
page 4 of the Final Action, claim 2 is rejected under § 103 (see Final Act. 6).
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

4
[and in paragraph 18 of the Specification], the inventor clearly
demonstrates possession of “wherein the first datum [a device
ID] is [] stored” to facilitate a useful network association. So,
when paragraphs [0017-18] are read together the inventor
clearly demonstrates possession of the disputed amendment.
This conclusion is buttressed by the maturity and predictability
of the art. To be sure, it is predictable that data, such as a device
ID, must be stored on a server to support communicative
coupling with that device.
Appeal Br. 11. In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates these points. Reply
Br. 5.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because
Appellant misinterprets the scope of the negative limitation at issue in this
rejection and fails to sufficiently address possible scenarios covered by the
broadest reasonable interpretation of this negative limitation. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO
is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during
examination.”). Here, we interpret the claimed negative limitation (“the first
datum is not stored solely to facilitate temporary communicative coupling
with the first electronic device”) as covering various scenarios including: 1)
the first datum is stored on the server to facilitate a permanent (i.e., wired)
network coupling with the first electronic device; and 2) the first datum is
stored permanently or persistently on the server to facilitate a wired network
coupling between the server and the electronic device. Appellant’s
arguments, however, discuss written description support only for
“facilitat[ing] a temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic
device” (which is the opposite of the claimed negative limitation), and for a
“‘first datum [a device ID] is [] stored’ to facilitate a useful network
association.” See Appeal Br. 11. Here, the negative claim limitation in
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

5
claim 12 was added during prosecution. Such a negative claim limitation is
adequately supported when the Specification describes a reason to exclude
the relevant limitation. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also MPEP § 2173.05(i) (“Any negative
limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure.
. . . The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.”).
Although Appellant has provided citations to particular paragraphs in the
Specification, Appellant does not identify any specific written description
support for the disputed negative limitation. See Appeal Br. 10–12 (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 17–18); Reply Br. 5 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 17–18).
We note paragraph 17 in the Specification generally describes
“[n]etwork coupling [that] may be any permanent or temporary
communicative coupling, and may be achieved by wireless communication
or direct physical connection between two or more electronic devices,
computers, or servers.” Spec. ¶ 17. However, Appellant does not provide
sufficient evidence or support to show where the Specification supports a
first datum being stored on the server to facilitate a permanent (i.e., wired)
network coupling with the first electronic device (one scenario covered by
the claimed negative limitation) or a first datum being stored permanently or
persistently on the server to facilitate a wired network coupling (another
scenario covered by the claimed negative limitation). In addition,
Appellant’s discussion of the Specification (see Appeal Br. 10–11) does not
sufficiently address the written description support for any scenarios covered
by the claimed negative limitation.
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

6
Because Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence to address the
written description support for the claimed negative limitation, we sustain
the Examiner’s written description rejection of claim 12.
With respect to claim 25, the Examiner finds the limitation of “the
associating is not solely to facilitate temporary communicative coupling with
the first electronic device” is “a negative limitation which does not appear to
have support in the Specification.” Final Act. 3.
Appellant contends the limitation is supported by paragraphs 17 and
18 in the Specification, whereby
paragraph [0017] of the Subject Application clearly
demonstrates possession of “facilitat[ing] [a] temporary
communicative coupling with the first electronic device.”
(Subject Claim 25.) The only remaining question is whether
there is support for associating a gesture and a device ID for the
purpose of communicative coupling.
Paragraph [0018] . . . demonstrates possession of
“wherein the associating is [] to facilitate” a useful network
association.

Appeal Br. 12. In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates these points. Reply
Br. 5.
Although we agree with Appellant that the Specification provides
support for associating a gesture and a device ID for the purpose of
communicative coupling (see Appeal Br. 12 and Spec. ¶¶ 15, 17–18), we do
not agree that this is what claim 25 requires. As for claim 12, Appellant’s
arguments for claim 25 fail to provide sufficient evidence to address the
written description support for the claimed negative limitation. We interpret
the claimed negative limitation in claim 25 to cover various possible
scenarios including: 1) the associating is used to facilitate a permanent (i.e.,
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

7
wired) communicative coupling with the first electronic device; and 2) the
associating information is kept permanently or persistently on the server to
facilitate a permanent (i.e., wired) coupling with the first electronic device.
Appellant’s arguments, however, discuss written description support for
“facilitat[ing] [a] temporary communicative coupling with the first
electronic device,” which is the opposite of the claimed negative limitation.
See Appeal Br. 12. We find Appellant’s arguments do not sufficiently
address the support for any scenarios covered by claim 25’s negative
limitation.
Because Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence to address the
lack of written description support for the claimed negative limitation recited
in claim 25, we sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection of claim
25.
§ 112(b) Rejection of Claims 12 and 25
The Examiner rejects “Claim 12 . . . as being indefinite” because
“[t]he newly amended claim language: ‘Network coupling may be any
permanent or temporary communicative coupling’ is a negative limitation
which does not appear to have support in the Specification.” Final Act. 3.
The Examiner further rejects “Claim 25 . . . as being indefinite” because
“[t]he newly amended claim language: ‘wherein the associating is not solely
to facilitate temporary communicative coupling with the first electronic
device’ is a negative limitation which does not appear to have support in the
Specification.” Final Act. 3–4.
We disagree with the Examiner’s § 112(b) rejection of claim 12
because the rejection relies on language not recited in claim 12 (i.e.,
“Network coupling may be any permanent or temporary communicative
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

8
coupling,” (Final Act. 3)). In addition, we disagree with the Examiner’s
§ 112(b) rejection of claims 12 and 25 because the rejection does not
identify words or phrases whose meaning is unclear (as required in an
indefiniteness rejection). See MPEP § 2173; Ex parte McAward, Appeal
2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017)
(precedential) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014))
(during prosecution, “[a] claim is indefinite when it contains words or
phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Instead, the Examiner’s § 112(b)
rejection references issues pertaining to written description support. See
Final Act. 3–4 (asserting lack of “support in the Specification”).
Because the Examiner has not provided reasons to support the
conclusion of indefiniteness for claims 12 and 25, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 112(b) rejection of claims 12 and 25.
§ 103 Rejection of Claims 12, 13, 15–19, and 25–27
With respect to independent claim 12, Appellant contends the
Examiner erred in finding Ouyang teaches or suggests “storing, on a server
. . . a first datum that identifies the first electronic device,” as claimed.
Appeal Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 1–3. Particularly, Appellant argues Ouyang’s
server backs up customized gesture-shortcut associations, but
[the] “customized associations” are “of a user”, meaning that
customized associations are linked to a user, and so do not need
to be linked to any device. . . .
. . .
in Ouyang, a “backup” of a customized gesture-shortcut
association is stored in association with a user, not in
association with a specific device.
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

9
Appeal Br. 8–9 (citing Ouyang ¶¶ 34–35, 77, 81, 115); see also Reply Br. 2
(“Ouyang’s mechanism for ‘backup’ of gesture associations may be
accomplished by storing the gesture associations with a user ID instead of a
device ID”). As such, Appellant argues the claimed “device ID ‘storing’
element is not implicit” or suggested by Ouyang. Appeal Br. 6–7, 9.
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 3–5. At the outset, we note
Appellant has submitted arguments that are not commensurate with the
broad scope of claim 12. In particular, Appellant argues the cited art is
missing Appellant’s “device ID ‘storing’ element.” See Appeal Br. 6
(emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 8 (arguing Ouyang’s server does not
store a “device ID”), 9 (arguing “the device ID element” is not present in
Ouyang); Reply Br. 2 (arguing Ouyang backs up the gesture associations
“with a user ID instead of a device ID”). Claim 12, however, does not
require storing a device ID. Instead, claim 12 recites “storing, on a server
. . . a first datum that identifies the first electronic device.” Appeal Br. 16
(claim 12) (emphasis added). A datum that identifies an electronic device is
broader than Appellant’s argued device ID, as also evidenced by Appellant’s
Specification—which provides that an “electronic device may be
represented by a unique identification number or other identifier.” Spec.
¶ 18 (emphasis added). The Specification, therefore, does not restrict the
claimed datum to a unique identification number (or device ID, as Appellant
argues); rather, the Specification discloses the datum could be some other
identifier by which an electronic device is represented at the server. See id.
The Specification also does not provide a definition for (or even any
examples of) such other identifier. See generally Spec.
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

10
In light of the broad language of claim 12, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments that Ouyang is deficient because (i) Ouyang’s backup
of gesture associations is “accomplished by storing the gesture associations
with a user ID instead of a device ID,” or because (ii) Ouyang’s “customized
[gesture-shortcut] associations are linked to a user, and so do not need to be
linked to any device.” Reply Br. 2; Appeal Br. 8. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that Ouyang’s backup of customized gesture-shortcut associations
at a server teaches or at least suggests “storing, on a server . . . a first datum
that identifies the first electronic device,” as recited in claim 12. Final Act.
8–9; Ans. 4–5.
More particularly, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that a user’s
customized gesture-shortcut associations (learned by an originating
electronic device in Ouyang) are sent by the originating device to a server to
create a backup for (i) later retrieval and reload onto the originating device,
or (ii) later retrieval for migration to another device of the user. Ans. 3–5
(citing Ouyang ¶¶ 26, 28, 32, 35, 81, Fig. 1); Final Act. 8–9 (citing Ouyang
¶¶ 77, 81, 115, 120). For example, Ouyang’s paragraphs 81 and 115 provide
that a “computing device 2A . . . learn[s] the association between the
inputted gesture 8A and the selected shortcut for future queries . . . [and]
may transmit the customized gesture-shortcut association to server 12 for
backup”—which allows for backed-up “[c]ustomized gestures and gesture-
shortcut associations . . . to be retrieved and used to identify gestures
detected on the originating computing device [(2A)] or to allow a user of the
originating computing device to restore or migrate the customized gesture-
shortcut associations the user developed.” See Ouyang ¶¶ 81, 115; Final
Act. 8–9; Ans. 4–5. The Examiner finds that, in the process of saving and
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

11
caching the user’s customized associations, Ouyang’s server stores some
datum that identifies the originating electronic device because the “copies of
locally created [customized gesture-shortcut] associa[tions] stored on server”
are associated with a specific device (e.g., a user’s originating device) that
the user may want to restore from (or to). Ans. 5; see Ouyang ¶¶ 35, 77, 81,
115. As further support for these findings, the Examiner references
Ouyang’s Figure 1 and paragraphs 26, 28, and 32 as evidence that
during [Ouyang’s] analysis, which is performed on the server,
information regarding the sending electronic device (e.g. 2A) is
maintained/stored on the server, such that the server can send
back the identified shortcuts, post analysis, to the corresponding
electronic device for which the gesture was originally entered
. . . a computing device transmits data of a gesture locally
performed on a specific device 2A to the server for analysis and
the server responds to the specific device 2A with the
corresponding associated shortcut to the locally input gesture.
. . . [W]herein each separate computing device (2A–2N) has an
individual path for sending and receiving data with the server,
wherein each specific path would be used by the server based
on stored or associated information of the original sending
computing device; such that a particular device which requested
a particular analysis from the server would receive the
particular analysis.

Ans. 4–5. The Examiner concludes, “the specific device is identified on the
server, such that customized associations made by the originating device
may be restored to the originating computing device.” Ans. 5. We agree
with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning, which are supported by the
disclosure of Ouyang.
Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred rely upon Appellant’s
arguments that Ouyang’s “custom gesture-shortcut associations are tagged to
a user rather than to a device” and “Ouyang’s mechanism for ‘backup’ of
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

12
gesture associations may be accomplished by storing the gesture associations
with a user ID instead of a device ID.” Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. As discussed supra, the claimed
datum in claim 12 (that identifies the first electronic device at the server) is
not required to be a device ID, as Appellant argues. Rather, the claimed
datum that identifies the first electronic device is broad and does not
preclude an identification of the device using information about the device’s
user or information about the device’s customization attributes.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant further explains that “the inherent
characteristics of Ouyang’s networking connection are clearly distinguished
in Subject Claims 12 and 25 because these claims recite ‘wherein the first
datum is not stored solely to facilitate temporary communicative coupling
with the first electronic device.’” Reply Br. 2. Appellant relies on this
argument to contend the claimed storing “is not found in the inner-workings
of Ouyang’s networking connection” and is not taught by “Ouyang’s
mechanism for ‘backup’ of gesture associations [that] may be accomplished
by storing the gesture associations with a user ID instead of a device ID.”
See id. Appellant’s “networking connection” argument is unpersuasive for
the following reasons. First, as discussed supra, claim 12 does not recite or
require storing a device ID, and neither does independent claim 25 (whose
similar “datum” limitation is argued by Appellant for the same reasons as
claim 12, see Appeal Br. 5–6 and Reply Br. 1–2). Second, Appellant’s
argument does not explain with sufficient evidence how or why the “storing”
recited in claims 12 and 25 is different from Ouyang’s networking and
storage. For example, Appellant has not shown that claim 12’s negative
limitation “wherein the first datum is not stored solely to facilitate temporary
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

13
communicative coupling with the first electronic device” would produce a
storing operation that is different from the storing operation disclosed by
Ouyang. The claimed negative limitation does not reconfigure the claimed
server to perform a particular storing function that is different from generic
data storage; and the claimed storing does not depend on the nature of the
specific type of information claimed (i.e., shared gesture and datum).
Therefore, the claimed negative limitation is considered nonfunctional
descriptive material and, as such, does not distinguish Appellant’s claimed
storing from Ouyang’s storage operation that stores, on a server, an
electronic device’s gesture data. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385
(Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367
F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In light of the broad terms recited in claims 12 and 25 and the
arguments presented, Appellant has failed to sufficiently distinguish the
claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Thus, we are
not persuaded of Examiner error and sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 12 and 25, and dependent claims 13, 15–19,
26, and 27, not separately argued.
§ 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 11
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends the
Examiner erred in finding Ouyang teaches or suggests “storing, on a server,
a shared gesture, a first datum that identifies a first electronic device, and a
second datum that identifies a second electronic device” and “associating, on
the server, the shared gesture with the first datum and the second datum.”
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

14
Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 3–4. Particularly, Appellant argues Ouyang’s
server backs up customized gesture-shortcut associations, but
Ouyang paragraphs [0081], [0077], and [0115] do not suggest
storing, on the server, a customized gesture-shortcut association
in association with a device ID. . . .
[But] even if a device ID were stored, on the Ouyang server,
with each customized gesture-shortcut association. . . . the
gesture-shortcut association customized by a first user on a first
device could be stored on the server with the ID of the first
device, and the same gesture-shortcut association,
independently customized by a second user on a second device,
could be stored a second time on the server with the ID of the
second device. In contrast, Subject Claim 1 states that the
gesture on the server is stored once, in association with the IDs
of both the first and second devices.

Appeal Br. 9–10 (emphases added); see also Reply Br. 3–4.
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 4–5, 9; Ans. 4–5. As discussed supra
with respect to claim 12, we are not persuaded that Ouyang does not teach or
suggest storing, on a server, a datum that identifies an electronic device (as
also recited in claim 1). In addition (for reasons similar to those discussed
supra with respect to claim 12), claim 1’s first datum and second datum are
not required to be device IDs, as Appellant argues. Rather, the claimed first
datum and second datum that identify electronic devices are broad and do
not preclude an identification of the devices using information about the
user of the devices or information about the devices’ customization
attributes.
As to Appellant’s argument that Ouyang does not teach or suggest a
single shared gesture associated with a first datum (that identifies a first
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

15
electronic device) and a second datum (that identifies a second electronic
device) (see Reply Br. 4; Appeal Br. 10), we agree with the Examiner that
Ouyang’s backup of customized gesture-shortcut associations that are used
by multiple electronic devices, teaches the claimed “associating.” See Final
Act. 4–5, 9 (citing Ouyang ¶¶ 77, 81–83, 86, 115, 120); Ans. 5 (citing
Ouyang ¶¶ 26, 35, 81). In particular, Ouyang discloses a user’s customized
gesture-shortcut associations (learned by an originating electronic device)
are sent by the originating device to the server to create a backup for (i) later
retrieval and reload onto the originating device, and (ii) later retrieval for
migration to another device of the user. See Ouyang ¶¶ 35, 77, 81, 115, 120;
Final Act. 9; Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner that Ouyang’s server
stores some data that identifies the user’s originating device and “a new or
different computing device” of the user (see Ouyang ¶ 35) because
Ouyang’s “copies of locally created [customized gesture-shortcut]
associa[tions] stored on server” are associated with the specific devices the
user may want to restore from (and to). Ans. 5. As noted by the Examiner,
“analysis [of the user’s customized gestures] is performed on the server [of
Ouyang] for multiple unique devices” of the user, thereby teaching the
user’s gesture (that is backed-up at the server) is associated with data that
identifies multiple devices of the user. Ans. 5; Final Act. 9; Ouyang ¶ 46
(“determination of one or more shortcuts associated with identified gesture
8A may occur on server 12 . . . . Server 12 may transmit an associated
shortcut, or data representative of the associated shortcut, identified on
server 12 to computing device”).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues “the inherent
characteristics of Ouyang’s networking connection are clearly distinguished
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

16
in this case because Subject Claim 1 recites ‘wherein the comparing step
follows the storing and associating steps.’” Reply Br. 3. We remain
unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument because the argument does not
sufficiently explain how or why claim 1’s storing and comparing are
distinguished from “characteristics of Ouyang’s networking connection.”
See id. In addition (as the Examiner finds), Ouyang’s comparing (e.g.,
gesture identification by server 12, see Ouyang ¶¶ 45–46, 95–96) is
performed after storing and associating (e.g., performed on a new user
device after migration of the user’s backed-up gestures from the server, see
Ouyang ¶¶ 35, 77, 81, 83, 86). Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 5.
In light of the broad terms recited in claim 1 and the arguments
presented, we find Appellant has failed to sufficiently distinguish the
claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Thus, we are
not persuaded of Examiner error and sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 4–8, and 11, not
separately argued.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–8, 11–13, 15–19,
and 25–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Appeal 2020-002291
Application 13/864,281

17
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12, 25 112(a) Written description 12, 25
12, 25 112(b) Indefiniteness 12, 25
1, 2, 4–8,
11–13, 15–
19, 25–27
103 Ouyang, Drader 1, 2, 4–8,
11–13, 15–
19, 25–27

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–8,
11–13, 15–
19, 25–27

Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED