Ex Parte Case et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2018

13690262 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/690,262 11/30/2012
58127 7590 11/07/2018
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michaela Rose Case
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.
RPS920120034USNP(710.209) 9736
EXAMINER
BIBBINS, LATANYA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2018 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 MICHAELA ROSE CASE, AARON MICHAEL STEWART, and
THOMASJOHNSLUCHAK
Appeal2018-004194 1
Application 13/690,2622
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JAMES B. ARPIN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19. Final Act. 2. Claims 2 and 11 are
canceled. App. Br. Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
August 14, 2017) and Reply Brief, ("Reply Br.," filed February 14, 2018);
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 13, 2017); the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed December 14, 2017); and the
originally-filed Specification ("Spec.," filed November 30, 2012).
2 According to Appellants, the real party-in-interest is Lenovo (Singapore)
PTE, Ltd. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' recited methods, devices, and program products relate to
"receiving force input in a z direction with respect to a planar surface of an
input device of an information handling device; measuring the force input at
the input device; and modifying one or more actions of the information
handling device commensurate with the measured force input; wherein the
one or more actions are associated with input along the planar surface."
Spec. ,r 3. As noted above, claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are pending. Claim 1,
directed to method for inputting information to an information handling
device, claim 10, directed to information handling devices, and claim 18,
directed to program products storing computer program code for operating
information handling devices, are the independent claims. App. Br. Claims
App 'x. Claims 3-10 and 19 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and
claims 12-17 depend directly or indirectly from claim 10. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a gesture input at a planar surface of an input
device of an information handling device;
determining a force input in a z direction with respect to
the gesture input to the planar surface by measuring the force
input at the input device;
performing, based upon the gesture input and the force
input, one or more gesture input actions; and
modifying an intensity of the one or more gesture input
actions of the information handling device, wherein the
modifying the intensity of the one or more gesture input actions
comprises modifying the intensity commensurate with the
measured force input.
Id.; see App. Br. 5-7.
2
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
pending claims:
Bells et al. ("Bells") US 2011/0018695 Al Jan. 27, 2011
Son et al. ("Son") US 2012/0105367 Al May 3, 2012
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4--10, and 13-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Bells. Final Act. 3-6. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of
Bells and Son. Id. at 6-7.
Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner's findings in the
Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact appearing below
for emphasis. We address these rejections below.
ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation By Bells
The Examiner finds that Bells discloses each and every element of
claims 1, 4--10, and 13-19. Final Act. 3-6. For the purposes of this
Appeal, Appellants argue independent claims 1, 10, and 18 together. App.
Br. 14; Reply Br. 16. Appellants argue claim 19 separately, but the
rejections of dependent claims 4--9 and 13-17 stand or fall with the
rejections of independent claims 1 and 10. App. Br. 14 ("for the purposes of
this Appeal only, a claim may be considered to stand or fall with the claim
from which it depends.").
3
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
1. Independent Claims 1, 10, and 18
Bells' s Figure 1 7 is reproduced below:
Figure 17 depicts a flowchart of a method of providing feedback and
performing functions based on force of a detected touch on a touch-sensitive
display in accordance with the present disclosure. Bells ,r 7. In particular,
referring to Figure 1 7, the recited step of "receiving a gesture input at a
planar surface of an input device of an information handling device" reads
on Bells's step 1702 of detecting a touch via one or more force sensors 122
of portable electronic device 100. Id. ,r 42; see Final Act. 3. The recited
step of "determining a force input in a z direction with respect to the gesture
input to the planar surface by measuring the force input at the input device"
reads on Bells's step 1704 of measuring the force applied to force
4
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
sensors 122. Bells ,r 42; see Final Act. 3. Referring to Bells's Figures 3 and
4, the measured force may be substantially perpendicular to the surface of a
screen, i.e., in the z-direction. Bells ,r 46, Figs. 3, 4; see Final Act. 3.
Appellants do not contest the mapping of these recited elements on Bells' s
disclosures. See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 17.
The Examiner further finds that Bells discloses the recited step of
"performing, based upon the gesture input and the force input, one or more
gesture input actions." Final Act. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds that
"Bells clearly discloses embodiments in which an amplitude of feedback
(such as scrolling, panning and/or zooming) is proportionally adjusted based
on different thresholds of force input (see at least paragraphs [0028], [0031 ],
[0032], [0038], [0040]-[0045] and [0051 ]-[0055])." Ans. 3. Again,
Appellants do not contest the mapping of this recited element on Bells' s
disclosures. App. Br. 16-17 (quoting Bells ,r 44 (discussing step 1708
("Perform Function Based on Force") of Bells's Fig. 17)).
The Examiner also finds that Bells discloses the recited step of
"modifying an intensity of the one or more gesture input actions of the
information handling device, wherein the modifying the intensity of the one
or more gesture input actions comprises modifying the intensity
commensurate with the measured force input." Final Act. 4. In particular:
Bells clearly discloses embodiments in which an amplitude of
feedback (such as scrolling, panning and/or zooming) is
proportionally adjusted based on different thresholds of force
input (see at least paragraphs [0028], [0031 ], [0032], [0038],
[0040]-[0045] and [0051 ]-[0055]). More specifically, Bells
discloses determining an amount of force associated with a
detected touch, comparing the detected amount to thresholds A
and B (paragraph [0042] and [0054 ]-[0055]) and adjusting the
amplitude of feedback related to the amount of force detected
5
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
(paragraphs [0041 ]-[0045] and [0054 ]-[0055]). That is, the
device may provide a greater amplitude of feedback for a touch
imparted with a greater force ( see the discussion in at least
paragraphs [0041]-[0045] and [0054]-[0055]). Bells explicitly
discloses that the feedback can be, scrolling, panning and/or
zooming (paragraphs [0044] and [0051 ]-[0055]) and more
specifically that the feedback can be the rate at which the
scrolling, panning and/or zooming occurs (see at least paragraph
[0044] which states "For example, when scrolling, panning, or
zooming an image displayed on device, the amount of scrolling,
panning, or zooming may be related to the force. For example,
when a harder force is detected, scrolling, panning, or zooming
may be farther or faster than for a softer force.").
Ans. 3--4. Bells further discloses that the rate of panning or zooming may be
"based on a linear, exponential, polynomial, or inverse relationship" with the
amount of force detected. Bells ,r 55; see Ans. 4.
Appellants disagree, contending that Bells does not disclose the
modifying step recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15-17. In particular, Appellants
contend that providing feedback, as disclosed by Bells, is different from
modifying, as recited in claim 1; and Bells' s disclosure that "the amount of
scrolling, panning, or zooming may be related to the force" (Bells ,r 44
( emphasis added)) does not disclose "modifying the intensity commensurate
with the measured force input." App. Br. 16-17. We disagree.
First, Appellants contend that, "in Bells, the feedback is in response to
providing the input and is used to indicate to the user that the system is
performing a function." App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 18. In particular, Appellants
focus on Bells' s example of tactile feedback of a specific duration. E.g.,
App. Br. 16 (quoting Bells ,r 45). Nevertheless, Bells discloses that "[t]he
feedback may be tactile, visual, audible, and so forth and may be of any
suitable type, style, duration, and amplitude" and that, referring to Figure 17,
6
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
"[t ]he feedback may be based on the amount of force measured at 1704 by
the device 100." Bells ,r 43. Bells's feedback is not limited to tactile
feedback of a limited duration. As the Examiner notes, Bells explains that
scrolling, panning, or zooming an image displayed may be related to the
force of the user's touch, such that "when a harder force is detected,
scrolling, panning, or zooming may be farther or faster than for a softer
force." Id. ,r 44; see Final Act. 4. Thus, we are persuaded that Bells's
feedback (scrolling, panning, and/or zooming) discloses modifying the
intensity of an output in response to the measured force input.
Second, Appellants contend, "Bells merely teaches that the amount
may be related to the force, but fails to explain the relationship between the
amount and the force." App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 19. Specifically, Appellants
contend that Bells does not disclose "modifying the intensity commensurate
with the measured force input." App. Br. 17 (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, we understand "commensurate" broadly to mean "the
modification depends on a change in the applied force of the contact, as
sensed and measured using an input device." Spec. ,r 16; see id. ,r 27 (giving
examples of "commensurate" modifications). Further, the Specification
describes that:
For adjusting feedback, changes in force result in changes
in magnitude of feedback provided by an information handling
device. The feedback may include feedback means such as
haptic or audio feedback. Thus, if a user is pressing with more
force on a touch screen, the information handling device may
modify a default action, such as haptic or audio feedback action,
to commensurately increase ( e.g., proportionally) the haptic or
audio feedback provided to the user. This may correspond to an
attempt to match the physiological necessities of the situation,
for example supplying greater haptic feedback to a user on a
7
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
harder press, as a lighter/ default haptic feedback may go
unnoticed due to the pressure of the input. Moreover, this
modification of a default feedback action may provide the user
with additional information, such as a proportional feedback
indicative of the sensed force, thus providing the user with a
metric of how much force is being supplied to the input device.
Spec. ,r 36 ( emphases added). Thus, we understand a "commensurate"
modification may be proportional to the pressing force and that Bells
discloses such a relationship between the pressing force and the feedback or
modification. See Bells ,r 43 ("For example, the amplitude of the feedback
may be proportionally based on the amount of force, such that the device
100 provides a greater amplitude of feedback for a touch imparted with a
greater force." ( emphasis added)), ,r 51 ("Panning may alternatively take
place proportionally to the amount of force." ( emphasis added)); ,r 55
("Alternatively, the distance 1204 scrolled may be proportional to the force
applied, thus the amount of scrolling may be proportional to the force
applied, and more than two different scrolling distances may be utilized."
( emphases added)). We agree that Bells discloses the modifying step recited
in claim 1.
For the above reasons, the Examiner has shown that each and every
element of independent claim 1 is disclosed by Bells. Final Act. 3--4;
Ans. 2-5. The elements of claim 1 are substantially the same as those
recited in each of independent claims 10 and 18. App. Br. Claims App 'x.
We are persuaded that the Examiner also has shown that each and every
element of independent claims 10 and 18 is disclosed by Bells. Final
Act. 5---6; Ans. 2-5; see Reply Br. 16 ("Accordingly, Applicants respectfully
submit that the arguments provided for one claim are also applicable to other
claims containing similar claim limitations."). Thus, we are not persuaded
8
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
that the Examiner erred in the concluding claims 1, 10, and 18 are
anticipated by Bells.
The Examiner also concludes that claims 4--10 and 13-1 7, which
depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1 or 10, are anticipated
by Bells. Final Act. 6-10. Appellants contend that, because the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 10, we cannot sustain the
rejections of dependent claims 4--10 and 13-17. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br.
16. For the above reasons, we disagree, and, thus, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred in the concluding claims 4--10 and 13-1 7 are anticipated
by Bells.
2. Dependent Claim 19
Claim 19 depends directly from independent claim 1 and recites the
methods of claim 1 "further comprising: determining another level of force
input exceeding another threshold; and thereafter selecting a response curve
based on the rate of change." App. Br. Claims Appx. For the above
reasons, Bells discloses each and every element of the methods of claim 1.
The Examiner further finds that Bells discloses the additional elements
recited in claim 19. Final Act. 6. We agree.
9
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
First, the Examiner finds that Bells discloses "determining another
level of force input exceeding another threshold." Final Act. 6; Ans. 5
( citing Bells' s Fig. 2 ). Bells' s Figure 2 is reproduced below:
As with Bells' s Figure 1 7, 3 Figure 2 depicts "a flowchart of a method of
providing feedback and performing functions based on force of a detected
3 We do not consider Bells' s Figures 2 and 1 7 as separate embodiments, and,
thus, we apply the disclosure of Figure 2 with that of Figure 17. See Net
MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
("[U]nless a reference discloses within the four comers of the document not
only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or
combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove
10
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
touch on a touch-sensitive display." Bells ,r 7. The Examiner finds that
Bells discloses comparing a level of force detected at step 204 to
Threshold A at step 206 and Threshold B at step 208. Id. at ,r,r 25, 27. Thus,
the Examiner finds that "Bells clearly discloses determining a level of force
input exceeding a threshold in at least elements 206 and 208 of Figure 2 and
the discussion in paragraphs [0025], [0027], [0032], [0042], and [0051 ]-
[0055])." Ans. 5. Appellants do not contest this finding. App. Br. 17-19;
Reply Br. 20-21.
Second, the Examiner finds that Bells discloses "thereafter selecting a
response curve based on the rate of change." Final Act. 6; Ans. 5-6. The
Examiner finds that the Specification does not define the recited "response
curve." Ans. 6. The Examiner notes, however, that:
Paragraph [0029] [ of the Specification] recites "Default action
modification may be achieved by utilizing force input
measurements to invoke different gain or response curves.
Invoking different response curves allows for the granular
adjustment of input, such as change in cursor movement speed"
while paragraph [0033] [of the Specification] recites "For
example, in some scenarios, harder presses on an input device
such as a touch screen invoke a more accurate response curve
with lower gain, allowing greater precision. In other scenarios,
softer presses invoke the more accurate response curve, with
harder presses increasing the gain."
Id. From these disclosures, the Examiner concludes that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term "response curve" is "the magnitude of
prior invention of the thing claimed, and thus, cannot anticipate under 3 5
U.S.C. § 102."); accord Application of Arkley, 455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972).
"Threshold" steps 206 and 208 of Figure 2 are examples of "Measuring"
step 1704 of Figure 17. See Bells ,r,r 14, 25, 38, 39, 42.
11
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
the response of a sensitive device to varying stimulus." Id. Appellants do
not contest this interpretation, and we adopt it for purposes of this appeal.
Although Bells does not expressly describe "response curves" (see
App. Br. 18), the Examiner finds that, Bells discloses various relationships
between the input force and the resulting feedback. See Ans. 5-8. In
particular, Bells discloses that:
Alternatively, the distance 1204 scrolled may be proportional to
the force applied, thus the amount of scrolling may be
proportional to the force applied, and more than two different
scrolling distances may be utilized. Alternatively, an inverse
relationship between the distance scrolled and the amount of the
force may be utilized. Additionally or alternatively to scrolling,
an application may pan or zoom a view of the document, picture,
or image at a rate that is related to the amount of force detected
based on any of a linear, exponential, polynomial, or inverse
relationship.
Bells ,r 55 ( emphasis added). Bells not only discloses different mathematical
relationships between the input force and the related feedback, but that these
different relationships alter the "rate" of change in the feedback, for
example, panning or zooming. These relationships, for example, linear as
opposed to exponential, disclose different response curves and rates of
change in the feedback. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968)
("it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference
but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom."). Moreover, these operations may be in
addition or as an alternative to other operations. Bells ,r 55. Thus, on this
record, we are persuaded that Bells discloses "selecting a response curve
based on the rate of change."
12
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
The Examiner concludes that Bells also discloses each and every
additional element of claim 19, and we agree.
B. Obviousness Over the Combined Teachings of Bells and Son
Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected as rendered obvious by the combined
teachings of Bells and Son. Final Act. 8-10. Claims 3 and 12 depend
directly from claims 1 and 10, respectively, and each recites "the threshold is
user adjustable." App. Br. Claims App'x. The Examiner finds that Son
teaches this limitation (Final Act. 7 ( citing Son ,r,r 7 6, 81)) and that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings
of Bells and Son to achieve the recited methods and devices of these claims
(Id. (citing Son ,r 76)). In particular, both Bells and Son teach methods of
"user interface for electronic devices using proportional force information"
(Son, Abst.; see Bells, Abst.). Son teaches "[d]ifferent activation thresholds
of tactile controls may be adjusted over time according to the present
invention allowing the overall force-sensitivity of a tactile input device to
accommodate different users' grasp and input capabilities" (Son ,r 76).
Thus, Son teaches an improvement to a shared purpose.
Appellants disagree contending that, unlike Son, "the [ recited]
threshold is specifically selected by the user, not learned by the device of
Son." App. Br. 21 (emphasis added); see Reply Br. 23. However, as the
Examiner notes, Son discloses "allowing the user to adjust thresholds by
manual input of the force levels." Ans. 9 ( emphasis added) ( citing Son
,r 81 ); see Final Act. 7. Thus, the Examiner finds that Son teaches a user-
selected threshold.
The Examiner concludes that the combined teachings of Bells and Son
render claims 3 and 12 obvious, and we agree.
13
Appeal2018-004194
Application 13/690,262
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 3-10, and 12-19; and we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-10, and 12-
19.
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
14