Ex Parte DAHL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2017

13758880 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017)

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.
13/758,880 02/04/2013 Tobias DAHL ELP1P013 5714
58766 7590 02/10/2017
Rover T aw Omim T T P
EXAMINER
P.O.Box 51887
Palo Alto, CA 94303-1887
YANG, NAN-YING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2017 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 S PTOmail @ beyerlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOBIAS DAHL and BJORN CATO SYVERSRUD
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,8801
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—17. App. Br. 5—9. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Elliptic Laboratories AS.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,880
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants invented an electronic device (2) capable of being
switched from a standby state to an active state. In particular, upon
detecting the presence of a user’s finger (6) within a predetermined distance
(d2) of the screen (4), the electronic device (2) displays a graphical element
(8), which the user may touch to interact with the device. Spec. Tflf 33—35,
Fig. 2.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. An electronic device comprising
a display screen,
the electronic device having an active state in which it is
configured to receive inputs from movements of an input object
in front of said display screen and a standby state in which at
least one of said inputs is disabled, the device further being
configured to be switchable from said standby state to said
active state upon the detection of the presence of said input
object within a predetermined distance of the device and the
subsequent detection of a predetermined user action, wherein
said electronic device is arranged to display a graphical element
at a predetermined position on said display screen when said
presence of the input object is detected within the
predetermined distance.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Hotelling et al.
(“Hotelling”)
US 2006/0161871 Al July 20, 2006
Caliskan et al.
(“Caliskan”)
US 2010/0182270 Al July 22,2010
2
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,880
Rejections on Appeal
Appellants request review of the following Examiner’s rejections:
Claims 1—3 and 7—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hotelling. Final Act. 4—8.
Claims 4—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hotelling and Caliskan. Final Act. 9—10.
ANAFYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5—9, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—5.2
Anticipation Rejection
Claim 1
Appellants argue that Hotelling does not describe a two-stage
procedure for switching a device from a standby state to an active state
required in the disputed limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 5—6; Reply Br. 2.
In particular, Appellants assert Hotelling discloses waking a device when a
finger approaches the screen. App. Br. 5—6 (citing Hotelling | 85).
According to Appellants, Hotelling does not describe detection of an input
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 15, 2015) (“App. Br.”), the Reply
Brief (filed March 10, 2016) (“Reply Br.”), the Answer (mailed January 12,
2016) (“Ans.”), the Final Office Action (mailed March 13, 2015) (“Final
Act.”), and the original Specification (filed February 4, 2013) (“Spec.”) for
the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,880
object then a subsequent detection of a predetermined user action. Id.
Appellants assert the single condition of a finger detected within a certain
distance of the touchscreen wakes up the electronic device. Reply Br. 2.
According to Appellants, subsequent movement of the finger in Hotelling
occurs after the electronic device is already awake. Id. Appellants contend
the two-stage procedure in the disputed limitations prevents the user
inadvertently waking the device. App. Br. 6.
These arguments are unavailing. As correctly noted by the Examiner,
Appellants’ Specification describes “waking up” an electronic device from a
standby state by detecting an input object within a certain proximity of the
device. Ans. 4—5 (citing Spec. 1 8). Appellants’ Specification further states
that the device is receptive to the performance of the predetermined user
action to bring the device out of the standby state. Spec. 1 8. An example of
the predetermined user action includes a touchless gesture in front of the
device. , Id. at 5, Ans. 5. Further, Appellants’ Specification describes a
“waking-up” process to bring the device from the standby state to an
intermediate state, between the standby state and the active state. See Spec.
1 8; see Ans. 5—6. The device is brought out of the standby state, including
this intermediate state, into the active state by the predetermined user action.
See Spec. 1 8; see Ans. 5—6,
Furthermore, as correctly noted by the Examiner, Hotelling describes
a process as recited in the disputed limitations for activating a user interface
from a dormant state to an unlocked state. Ans. 5—6. In particular, Hotelling
states:
[T]he user interface 104 is activated from a dormant state when
an object is detected. For example, the device may be woken
up from a sleep mode. When it wakes up, the display 108 may
4
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,880
be fully powered and the touch screen 110 may be readied for
receiving touch inputs (e.g., unlocked).
Hotelling 1 84.
We agree with the Examiner Hotelling’s disclosed user interface is
woken up from a standby, sleep mode at the detection of an object. Ans. 5.
At this point, consistent with Appellants’ Specification and the disputed
limitations, the detection of the object causes the user interface to wake up
from a standby, sleep mode to an intermediate state. Id. at 6 (citing Spec.
1 8); see Hotelling 1 84. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, waking up in
Hotelling changes the user interface from a standby state to an intermediate
state, but not the active state. App. Br. 5—6 (citing Hotelling 1 85); Reply
Br. 2. Hotelling describes that when the user interface wakes up from the
sleep mode, the touch screen may be readied to be put into the active,
unlocked state with further processing in addition to presentation of an input
object within a predetermined distance from the user interface. Ans. 5; see
Hotelling H 84, 85. The Examiner explains that the user interface, upon
detection of the object, such as a finger or stylus, within close proximity,
then detects the location, direction, speed, and orientation of the object.
Ans. 5 (citing Hotelling 140). Activation of the user interface requires the
first step to be performed before the second step. See Hotelling 1 85.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Hotelling describes a first
step of detection of proximity of an object, then a second step of determining
movement properties of the object consistent with user finger gestures, to
place the user interface into an activated state. Ans. 5—6 (citing Hotelling
140).
5
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,880
Appellants reply that Hotelling discloses the single step of detection
of the presence of the object enables a particular graphical user interface
element which is further monitored for user inputs. Reply Br. 3 (citing
Hotelling H 92—93). However, Hotelling discloses that this embodiment of
operating the electronic device occurs after the electronic device is already
in an active state from the dormant state. See Hotelling || 84, 91. Thus,
because Appellants’ arguments that Hotelling describes solely one step for
switching a device from a standby state to an active state are not persuasive,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claim 2
Appellants argue Hotelling does not describe that the predetermined
user action is the recited movement of the input object in front of the display
screen. App. Br. 7. Appellants assert that Hotelling discloses proximity
gestures performed after the device has woken up. Id. (citing Hotelling |
85); Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, the proximity gestures in
Hotelling are not part of the two-stage process for waking up the device. Id.
Appellants additionally contend that Hotelling does not disclose the recited
movement of the input object in front of the display screen. Id. These
arguments are not persuasive.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Hotelling describes an initial
detection of the input object within a predetermined distance followed by a
subsequent detection of a touchless gesture. Ans. 7. As mentioned above,
the Examiner explains the user interface of Hotelling is woken up from a
standby, sleep mode when an object is detected. Id (citing Hotelling | 84).
At this point, the user interface is in an intermediate state between standby,
6
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,880
sleep mode and active, unlocked mode. See Hotelling | 84. According to
the Examiner, subsequent detection of a predetermined user action places the
user interface into an active, unlocked state for user inputs and other actions
associated with a graphical user interface (GUI). Ans. 7 (citing Hotelling
1 84). We agree with the Examiner. Hotelling’s description of waking up
the user interface allows the user interface to be readied for receiving touch
inputs to place it in the active, unlocked state. See Hotelling || 84, 85.
Hotelling describes that contactless proximity gestures can be performed to
place the user interface into the active, unlocked state. Id. These contactless
proximity gestures include moving a finger over the user interface such that
movement properties including the spatial location, direction, speed and
orientation of the finger relative to the user interface can be detected.
Ans. 7; see Hotelling 140. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, Hotelling
describes movement of the input object in front of the display screen to place
the user interface into the active, unlocked state from an intermediate state to
which the display screen has been placed after being woken up. App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding that Hotelling anticipated claim 2.
Claim 7
Appellants contend Hotelling does not describe the recited device
arranged to define a time window during which the predetermined user
action can be performed in order to switch the device from the standby state.
App. Br. 8. Appellants assert Hotelling teaches deactivation of the user
interface when an object is no longer detected within a time out period. Id.
(citing Hotelling 190). Appellants argue the deactivation described in
7
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,880
Hotelling does not disclose the recited time window within which the
predetermined user action can be performed to switch the device from the
standby state to activate it. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4. According to
Appellants, the predetermined action is performed before the device is
switched to the active state. Reply Br. 4. These arguments are not
persuasive.
We agree with the Examiner that Hotelling describes a time window
within which the user interface detects gestures before deactivating the
electronic device. Ans. 10 (citing Hotelling 190). We disagree with
Appellants that Hotelling teaches the electronic device solely in the activated
state during the time out period. Reply Br. 4. Hotelling discloses that the
user interface is activated or put into an intermediate state, as discussed
above, from the dormant state when a proximate object is detected. See
Hotelling | 89. In particular Hotelling states that “[T]he user interface or
some portion of the user interface is activated or affected in a non-trivial
manner when an object is detected above the user interface. In one
embodiment, the user interface is activated from a dormant state.” Id. After
placement in the intermediate state, Hotelling describes deactivation from
this intermediate state to the dormant state if there is not subsequent action
detected from the object within a time out period. We, therefore, agree with
the Examiner that Hotelling discloses that if the user interface detects a
touch or gesture before deactivation, the electronic device will be activated
from the intermediate state, as well as the standby state. Ans. 10; see
Hotelling || 84, 90. We are thus unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 7.
8
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,880
Claim 13
Appellants argue Hotelling does not describe a transmitter and/or
receiver which is/are also used by the device for transmission and/or
reception of audible signals. App. Br. 8. Appellants assert that the
telephones and auditory feedback are not used to transmit and receive an
acoustic signal in the detection of proximity. Id. at 8—9. The Examiner
responds that the device in Hotelling may include telephones. Ans. 10
(citing Hotelling 138). The Examiner additionally finds Hotelling describes
the device transmitting and receiving data including audible signals with
telephones. Id. (citing Hotelling H 38, 74). Appellants’ contention that
Hotelling does not disclose an acoustic signal in the detection of proximity is
not persuasive because these limitations are not recited in the claim.3
Consequently, because Appellants have failed to rebut the Examiner’s
finding of telephones in Hotelling transmitting and receiving audible signals
to describe the recited limitations, we sustain the rejection of claim 13.
Claim 14
Appellants assert Hotelling does not describe the recited just single
channel comprising a transmitter-receiver pair to detect the input object
and/or the predetermined user action. App. Br. 9. In particular, Appellants
contend Hotelling does not describe a number of channels. Id. \ Reply Br. 4—
5. The Examiner finds Hotelling describes a transmitter to provide
ultrasonic pulses to hit nearby objects and return as echoes received with
'SeeIn re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[Appellant’s
arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.”).
9
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,880
delay measured. Final Act. 7 (citing Hotelling 145). Hotelling discloses
that the greater the time of the delay, the farther the object is from the user
interface to detect an object. See Hotelling 145. Appellants reply that the
Examiner is relying upon inherency without establishing inherency. Reply
Br. 5. We do not agree with Appellants. The ordinarily skilled artisan
would understand that the series of received echoes with varying delays in
Hotelling indicates the speed of an object moving to or from the user
interface to indicate a proximity gesture.4 See Hotelling || 40, 45.
Hotelling additionally describes the proximity detection system to include
one or more proximity sensors. Hotelling 146. Moreover, the ordinarily
skilled artisan would view the one proximity sensor and the transmitter of
ultrasonic pulses as a transmitter receiver pair. See Hotelling || 45 46.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would also interpret the free space through
which the ultrasonic pulses transmit among the transmitter, the object, and
the proximity sensor as the recited single channel. See Hotelling || 45 46.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 14.
Regarding the rejection of claims 3, 8—12, and 15—17, because
Appellants have presented no additional persuasive arguments (App. Br. 6—
7, 9; Reply Br. 3, 5), we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 8—12, and 15—17
for the same reasons set forth above.
4 See In re Donahue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“It is well settled
that prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102[] must sufficiently describe the claimed
invention to have placed the public in possession of it. . . . Such possession
is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the
publication’s description of the invention with his own knowledge to make
the claimed invention.”) (Citations omitted).
10
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,880
Obviousness Rejection
Claim 4
Appellants argue that Caliskan does not teach the recited detection of
movement of the input object towards the display followed by movement
away. App. Br. 7—8. In particular, Appellants assert Caliskan teaches a
single tap as wake up touching. Id. at 8 (citing Caliskan | 54). Appellants
contend that Caliskan does not teach detection of any movement. Reply
Br. 4. Appellants argue that Caliskan detects the tap on the screen. Id.
Appellants additionally argue that Caliskan cannot be combined with
Hotelling because the proximity gestures in Hotelling relied upon to teach
claim 2 are taught as an alternative to touching the screen. App. Br. 8 (citing
Hotelling | 85).
In response, the Examiner explains reliance on Hotelling to teach the
detection of movement towards the display screen followed by movement
away and reliance on Caliskan to such movement. Ans. 8—9. The Examiner
finds that the proximity detection system in Hotelling has the capability of
detecting movement toward the display screen followed by movement away.
Ans. 8 ; see Hotelling 140 (“The proximity detection system 16 may also
detect location (e.g., x, y, z), direction, speed, orientation (e.g., roll, pitch,
yaw), etc. of the finger relative to the I/O surface 12.”). We agree with the
Examiner that Hotelling teaches the ability of detection of movement
towards and movement away from the display screen. Ans. 8. Hotelling
teaches detection of the z location component of an input object distance
from the display screen as well as direction and speed relative to the display.
See Hotelling 140. The Examiner relies upon the wake-up tapping of
Caliskan to teach the predetermined user action comprising movement of the
11
Appeal 2016-003992
Application 13/758,880
input object towards the display followed by movement away. Ans. 9
(citing Caliskan | 54). We agree with the Examiner that tapping necessarily
involves movement of an input object toward the display followed by
movement away. Id. If such movements were not included in tapping, the
input object would be in constant contact with the display. See Caliskan
1 54. Caliskan teaches that such long-term contact as pressing and holding
is a separate form of wake-up touching from tapping. See id. We disagree
with Appellants’ argument that Hotelling teaches the use of proximity
gestures is mutually exclusive from the use of touching. App. Br. 8 (citing
Hotelling | 85). Hotelling teaches combining proximity gestures with touch
gestures. Hotelling 140. Thus, Appellants’ argument that the teachings of
Hotelling and Caliskan are inconsistent to be combined is not persuasive.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Hotelling and Caliskan renders claim 4 unpatentable.
Regarding the rejection of claims 5 and 6, because Appellants have
presented no additional persuasive arguments, we also sustain the rejection
of claims these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—17.
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
12