Ex Parte Blumenberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

11620727 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111620,727 01107/2007
61725 7590 02/26/2016
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP I AI
2 PALO ALTO SQUARE
3000 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 700
PALO ALTO, CA 94306
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher Blumenberg
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.
P5040USl/63266-5576US 9812
EXAMINER
DAO, TUANC.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER BLUMENBERG
Appeal2014-005826
Application 11/620, 727
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
rejection of claims 1--4, 7-10, 13-20, and 97-100. 1 Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and
21-96 have been canceled. App. Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 An oral hearing was held February 16, 2016.
Appeal2014-005826
Application 11/620, 727
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosure is directed to "an environment with user
interface software interacting with a software application to provide gesture
operations for a display of a device." Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method performed by an electronic device having a
display with multiple views, the method comprising:
transferring, via an application programming interface
(API), a handle gesture event function call from user interface
software to a software application associated with a view of the
multiple views in response to a gesture event that is associated
with a user input that includes a plurality of input points
touching the display, wherein the view is associated with the
gesture event;
receiving at the software application the handle gesture
event function call from the user interface software; and
transferring, via the API, a gesture change function call
from the user interface software to the view that is associated
with the gesture event.
The Examiners Rejection
Claims 1--4, 7-10, 13-20, and 97-100 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trantow (US 2003/0222917 Al; Dec. 4,
2003) and Lyon (US 2006/0066588 Al; Mar. 30, 2006). Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings
and conclusions (see Final Act. 3-20; Advisory Act. 1-3; Ans. 3-23) as our
own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
2
Appeal2014-005826
Application 11/620, 727
A. Independent claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because the combination of Trantow and Lyon does not teach or suggest the
recited "receiving" and "transferring" method steps. See App. Br. 16; Reply
Br. 6. Appellant further contends "a person having ordinary skill in the art
would not recognize [Trantow's] operating system as a software application"
as claimed (App. Br. 17), and, "although the middleware of Trantow
generates function calls, the middleware of Trantow is not user interface
software" as claimed, because "Trantow does not teach or suggest that the
middleware operates a user interface" (App. Br. 18). Appellant additionally
contends
in accordance with the pending claims, a gesture event requires
a user input that includes a plurality of input points touching the
display. Trantow's description of moving the device in a
predetermined pattern or motion does not teach or suggest a
"gesture event" as that term is used in claim 1, and therefore
does not teach or suggest a gesture change function call as
recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 20.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellant's
Specification provides at most examples, but no narrowing definitions, of
the recited terms such as "user interface software" and "software
application,"2 and Appellant does not provide sufficient evidence or
2 We note Appellant's Specification states "[t]he API interfaces between the
software applications and user interface software to provide a user of the
device with certain features and operations." Spec. i-f 5; compare Trantow,
3
Appeal2014-005826
Application 11/620, 727
argument to persuade us the Examiner's construction is in error. We thus
find reasonable the Examiner's finding that the recited "software
application" encompasses the operating system of Trantow and the recited
"user interface software" encompasses the middleware of Trantow. See
Ans. 4--5, 8-10; see also Trantow, Fig. 8.
That is, we agree with the Examiner's construction, and the
Examiner's findings that Trantow teaches or suggests transferring and
receiving a handle gesture event function call, as claimed. We agree,
because Trantow discloses the "operating system 84 of the device is
supported by the operating system GUI APis 82, which perform the function
calls to the operating system 84 .... The middleware manages the gestures
dictionary 80 ... [and] provides support to the user interface" (Trantow i-f
42); and because Trantow also discloses the middleware will "translate the
gestures and movements into state transitions and function calls for the
operating system GUI APis that allows the device to execute operating
system commands" (Trantow i-f 43). See Final Act. 3--4. We also agree with
the Examiner's findings that Trantow teaches or suggests transferring a
gesture change function call, because Trantow discloses the middleware
associates gestures with computing actions by using function calls (see id.),
and that gesture "measurements are obtained from the motion sensor array
and processed to determine location in the desktop boundaries, as well as
translated into commands for the application or object in view." Trantow i-f
31; see also Ans. 14.
Fig. 8. The Specification further describes an operating system as including
one or more programs, and that one or more programs include various
instructions for transferring function calls or messages through an
application programming interface. Spec. i-f 149.
4
Appeal2014-005826
Application 11/620, 727
Further, the Examiner correctly finds Lyon teaches a gesture event
that includes a plurality of input points touching the display. Final Act. 5
(citing Lyon, Fig. 10; i-f 26, describing "three-finger and four-finger gestures
... to implement user-level tasks or operations"). We agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Trantow to
transfer a gesture change function call in response to a gesture event as
taught by Lyon "for the purpose of detecting [] various gestures." Final Act.
5. Appellant argues the references individually (see, e.g., App. Br. 21), and
does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Trantow and Lyon teaches or suggests the disputed limitations (see Final
Act. 3-5).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 in view of Trantow and Lyon, as well as independent claims 7, 13,
14, 17, and 20 which are not separately argued. See App. Br. 14--22.
B. Dependent claim 2
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 2,
because
persons of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered
Lyon to be a teaching that there is a reason for including a
number of fingers currently touching the display, a number of
fingers initially touching the display, and a scale of the fingers
in a gesture function call to produce the applicants claimed
invention.
Reply Br. 9; see also App. Br. 24--25.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. As discussed above with
respect to independent claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that Trantow in
view of Lyon teaches or suggests a "gesture change function call" within the
5
Appeal2014-005826
Application 11/620, 727
meaning of the claims. Further, the Examiner finds Lyon teaches or
suggests the recited gesture information including number of fingers
currently touching the display, a number of fingers initially touching the
display, and a scale of the fingers as claimed. Final Act. 6. We agree,
because Lyon discloses detecting various gestures such as "two fingers both
down and then spread apart and back together" and "one finger down and
then two fingers down or tap." Lyon i-f 25; see also Ans. 18-19 (citing Lyon,
Figs. 6-9).
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's conclusion
that the combined teachings of Trantow and Lyon would suggest a gesture
function call-with the gesture information as claimed-to those of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); cf KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 2, as
well as dependent claims 8, 15, 18, 97, and 99 which Appellant does not
argue separately. See App. Br. 23.
C. Dependent claim 3
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 3,
because "Lyon does not teach or suggest anywhere a 'chord start event,'
'chord change event,' and 'chord end event' in a 'chord event object."' App
Br. 26; see also Reply Br. 10.
As discussed above with respect to dependent claim 2, we agree with
the Examiner that the combination of Trantow and Lyon teaches or suggests
detecting and transmitting gesture information relating to the number of
6
Appeal2014-005826
Application 11/620, 727
fingers contacting the display, both initially and currently. See Ans. 19;
Lyon, Figs. 6-10 (depicting multiple finger tap operations and rotation
operations using a sensor array); i-fi-123, 24. Further, we note the portion of
Appellant's Specification referring to chords is as follows: "[a] gesture
event object may be a chord event object having a chord count (e.g., number
of fingers contacted the view or display), a chord start event, a chord change
event, and a chord end event. A chord change event may include a scaling
or rotation transform." Spec. i-f 102. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
the combination of Trantow and Lyon reasonably teaches or suggests "the
gesture event comprises a chord event object having a chord count, chord
start event, chord change event, and chord end event," as recited by claim 3.
See Ans. 22 (citing, e.g., Lyon i-fi-124, 25, which describe gestures including
"a touch of one or more digits with a tap of one or more digits," "one finger
down and then a second finger down," and "two fingers down together and
rotated").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim
3, as well as dependent claims 9, 16, 19, 98, and 100 which Appellant does
not argue separately. See App. Br. 26.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 13,
14, 17, and 20, and dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 97, 98, 99,
and 100. Appellant advances no further argument on the remaining
dependent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
these claims for the same reasons discussed above.
7
Appeal2014-005826
Application 11/620, 727
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 7-10,
13-20, and 97-100 is affirmed.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8