Ex Parte Cheng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13089870 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
13/089,870 04/19/2011 Peng Cheng 042933/403848 1273
10949 7590 12/30/2016
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
SUN, LI P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PENG CHENG
Appeal 2016-001408
Application 13/089870
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 1,9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 through 22, and 25.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of providing a multi­
dimensional data interface. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention
and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
causing display of a first portion of data;
receiving first data navigation instructions for navigating
the data in a first dimension or a second dimension via a first
user interface device configured for user input;
Appeal 2016-001408
Application 13/089,870
causing a presentation of the data to be modified within
the first dimension or the second dimension in response to at
least receiving the first data navigation instructions;
receiving second data navigation instructions for
navigating the data in a third dimension based on a user input to
a second user interface device, the user input comprising a
movement substantially orthogonal to the first user interface
device configured for user input, wherein the second user
interface device is on a second plane that is different from a
first plane of the first user interface device; and
in response to at least receiving the second data
navigation instructions, causing the presentation of the data to
be modified within the third dimension.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hotelling et al.
(US 8,239,784 B2; Aug. 7, 2012), Brisebois et al. (US 2011/0087963 Al;
Apr. 14, 2011), and Camp Jr. et. al. (US 2005/0184953 Al; Aug. 25, 2005).
Answer 2—10.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 21, 22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Hotelling, Brisebois, Camp and Kataoka
et al. (US 7,716,604 B2; May 11, 2010). Answer 10-13.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Hotelling, Brisebois, Camp and Mattos et
al. (US 8,271,898 Bl; Sept. 18, 2012). Answer 13-15.
ANALYSIS
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 15, 2015,
Reply Brief filed November 18, 2015, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
September 18, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-001408
Application 13/089,870
Appellants argue that claim 1 recites “receiving second data
navigation instructions for navigating the data in a third dimension based on
a user input to a second user interface device, the user input comprising a
movement substantially orthogonal to the first user interface device
configured for user input” which is not taught by the art of record. App. Br.
8—9. Appellants’ arguments are directed to this issue and focus on the
teachings of Camp. Appellants further argue the skilled artisan would not
combine Camp with the other devices as Camp teaches away from using the
thumb input interfaces with a touch screen. App. Br. 9—12.
We are not persuaded of error by these arguments. As the Examiner
identifies in the Answer, the rejection is based upon the combination of the
references. Answer 17—18. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Hotelling
teaches receiving input for and navigating in two dimensions via a touch
screen input. Answer 2-4. The Examiner finds that Brisebois teaches
receiving input and navigating in a third dimension using a second user
interface. Answer 3^4. Further, the Examiner finds that Camp teaches a
user interface, which allows thumb input in both up/down and sideways, and
as such has input orthogonal to the display. Answer 6—7. Based upon these
findings the Examiner concludes the claimed second interface device
orthogonal to the first user input device is obvious. We concur with the
Examiner’s findings and consider that the skilled artisan would recognize
that Camp’s thumb input device in two directions is an alternative or
complementary approach to the side interfaces of Brisebois (which also
makes use of Thumb inputs, although in only one direction (i.e. up/down)).
Thus, we consider the combination to be the use of a known method to
produce known results (i.e., when combined the thumb input device includes
an input in a direction orthogonal to the touch screen, the first input device
3
Appeal 2016-001408
Application 13/089,870
and provides an additional manner of inputting commands). We are not
persuaded that Camp teaches away from using the thumb input with a
touchscreen as there is insufficient evidence to show that Camp discourages
using the two together, and as shown by Brisebois, having one of these
interfaces is not mutually exclusive of having the other. Similarly, we do
not consider that modifying Camp to make use of a touch screen would
render Camp unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as argued by Appellants
on page 4 of the Reply Brief. Rather use of both together merely provides
multiple input devices. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 through 4, 6, 7, 9,
12, 14, 15, 17, and 20 similarly rejected and grouped with claim 1.
Appellants have not presented separate arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 11, 19, 21, 22, and 25. Thus, we similarly
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 7,
9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 through 22, and 25 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
4