Ex Parte Alameh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

12428187 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/428, 187 0412212009
27939 7590 02/17/2016
Philip ff Bum1s, IV
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rachid Alameh
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.
BPMOT0097RA
(CS35973)
EXAMINER
WONG,KINC
8419
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2016 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 RACHID ALAMEH, ROGER ADY, DALE BENGTSON,
RICKY J. HOOBLER, JIN KIM, JEFFREY OLSON, and HOI YOUNG
Appeal2014-004541
Application 12/428, 187
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBORAH K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-23, which constitute all claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed invention relates generally to touch sensitive
user interfaces for electronic devices, and more particularly to a system and
method for presenting user actuation targets on a display. (Spec. i-f 2.)
Appeal2014-004541
Application 12/428, 187
Claims 1 and 8, which are exemplary, reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium in an
electronic device, the electronic device comprising a
processor and a display for presenting information to a
user, the computer-readable medium including
instructions for a method, when executed by the
processor, to present one or more menus to the user on
the display, the instructions comprising:
storing at least some user actuation target selections
made by the user as a user actuation history;
receiving a user input request for a menu having a
plurality of user actuation targets presented therein;
determining a location of an object proximately located
with the display corresponding to the user input request;
determining a user actuation target arrangement from the
user actuation history, wherein the user actuation target
arrangement comprises a hierarchy of precedence; and
presenting at least a portion of the plurality of user
actuation targets on the display in the menu about the
determined location and ordered in accordance with the
user actuation target arrangement.
8. A non-transitory computer-readable medium in an
electronic device, the electronic device comprising a
processor and a touch sensitive display for presenting
information to a user, the computer-readable medium
including instructions for a method, when executed by
the processor, to present a menu to the user on the touch
sensitive display, the instructions comprising:
determining an amount of pressure being exerted upon
the touch sensitive display by the user; and
2
Appeal2014-004541
Application 12/428, 187
presenting the menu on the touch sensitive display in
response to the amount of pressure being exerted on the
touch sensitive display;
wherein when the amount of pressure is within a first
pressure range the presenting comprises presenting a first
menu on the touch sensitive display; and
wherein when the amount of pressure is within a second
pressure range, the second pressure range comprising
pressures greater than in the first pressure range, the
presenting comprises presenting a second menu on the
touch sensitive display.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Williams (et al.)
Chang (et al.)
us 5,945,988
US 2007 /0242054 Al
REJECTION APPEALED
Aug.31, 1999
Oct. 18, 2007
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Williams and Chang. (Non-Final Act. 1 2.)
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Williams and
Chang teach or suggest "presenting at least a portion of the plurality of user
actuation targets on the display in the menu about the determined location
... , " as recited in claim 1 and as commensurately recited in claims 15 and
1 The Office Action of September 24, 2012.
3
Appeal2014-004541
Application 12/428, 187
21, and "determining an amount of pressure ... " and "presenting the menu
... in response to the amount of pressure being exerted on the touch
sensitive display," as recited in claim 8. (App. Br. 12-17.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Williams teaches the limitation-at-issue in
claim 1 by disclosing the presentation of a grid in which a user can move a
cursor to a cell and click within the cell. (Ans. 2.) The Examiner correlates
the clicking within the cell with user actuation targets and finds that these
user actuation targets have the recited hierarchy of precedence. (Id.)
Appellants argue that William's grid fails to teach the limitation-at-issue
because Williams presents the user actuation targets in the grid before it
determines the location-at-issue. (App. Br. 16.) We agree with Appellants.
The limitation-at-issue requires the location be determined before the
electronic device presents the user actuation targets. (See claim 1.) In
particular, claim 1 recites that the device presents the user actuation targets
around the determined location. (Id.) With this recitation, if a location has
not yet been determined, the determined location does not exist and the user
actuation targets cannot be presented around it.
The portions of Williams cited by the Examiner, disclose the opposite
sequence of steps. As Appellants argue, Williams presents the user
actuation targets on its grid before it determines the location cited by the
Examiner. (App. Br. 16.)
In sum, the Examiner sets forth how Williams (i) determines a
location and (ii) presents user actuation targets around a location with a
4
Appeal2014-004541
Application 12/428, 187
hierarchy. (Ans. 2-3.) The Examiner, however, has not set forth why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform those two
steps in the sequence required by claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner erred in
finding that Williams teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claim 1,
and do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 15 and 21
Appellants argue commensurately recited claims 15 and 21 on the
same basis as they argued for claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 21 for the reasons set forth above for
claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 16--20, and 22-23
Claims 2-7, 16-20, and 22-23 each incorporate, through dependency,
the limitations of one of independent claims 1, 15, and 21. Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7, 16-20, and 22-23 for the
same reasons as for their respective independent claims, as set forth above.
Claims 8-14
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Williams and Chang teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 8
of "determining an amount of pressure being exerted upon the touch
sensitive display by the user" and "presenting the menu on the touch
sensitive display in response to the amount of pressure being exerted on the
touch sensitive display." (App. Br. 17.) In particular, Appellants contend
that Williams teaches nothing that determines pressure and takes no action in
response to a pressure determination. (Id.) Appellants note that Williams
never uses the word "pressure." (Id.) Appellants also argue that Chang also
5
Appeal2014-004541
Application 12/428, 187
does not disclose determining pressure, again noting that Chang does not use
the word "pressure." (Id.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. That Williams and Chang
do not use the word "pressure" is of no consequence. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (a reference does not have to satisfy an
ipsissimis verbis test to disclose a claimed element). Appellants have not
provided any persuasive reason why the combination of Williams and Chang
fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Specifically, the Examiner
cites Chang's press-type circuit that detects touch location as disclosing a
pressure sensor. (Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Chang i-f 8).) Appellants have not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument as to persuade us that Chang's
press-type circuit does not disclose a pressure sensor. Similarly, while
Appellants argue that William's mouse does not determine pressure,
Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or argument as to why the
mouse does not. (App. Br. 17.)
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
that that Williams and Chang teach or suggest the limitations-at-issue.
(Non-Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2--4.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 8 and of dependent claims 9-14, which were not
separately argued.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 15-23 is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 8-14 is affirmed.
6
Appeal2014-004541
Application 12/428, 187
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7