Ex Parte Eng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

14158579 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/158,579 01/17/2014
102469 7590 12/21/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Lee Eng
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.
13-SC-0574-USl 4576
EXAMINER
FLORES, ROBERTO W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID LEE ENG, ILKKA VARJE, KEVIN BRUCKERT,
RICHARD J. SEIS, ANDRIJA BOSNJAKOVIC, and
ALEKSANDER ODOROVIC
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-15, and 17-23. Appellants have canceled claims 2
and 16. See Br. 36, 40. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). See Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420,
1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Nvidia Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
automatically determining which form of user input will be offered for a
given process running on a computing device. Spec. ,r 13, Abstract. In a
disclosed embodiment, Appellants describe a portable computing system,
such as a game device, comprising a plurality of user inputs ( e.g., joysticks,
triggers, pushbuttons, and touch-screen display). Spec. ,r,r 1, 6, Fig. 1.
Additionally, Appellants describe the computing device may also comprise a
virtualization module for determining, for example, based on feedback from
the computing system, which form of user input (e.g., absolute position
information typical of a joystick or relative position information typical of a
pointing device) is to be offered for a given process. Spec. ,r,r 13-15,
Figs. 2, 3. As an example, the Specification describes a user may be playing
a video game on the computing device using a joystick as an input device
when an email or text alert is received. Spec. ,r 16. According to the
Specification, the virtualization module:
may include knowledge of which application has input focus,
whether that application is consuming user input as offered by
the input device, whether the offering of such input triggers an
error, and whether other user-input conditions are detected that
heuristically could indicate that the user desires to transition from
one form of input to another.
Spec. ,r 17. Thus, the user input may switch from a joystick to a virtual
mouse. Spec. ,r 16.
Claims 1 and 6 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and
are reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
2
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
1. A system comprising:
a transduction component of a user input device of a
computer system, the transduction component configured to
transduce first position data related to a hand movement of a user
on the user input device of the computer system into second
position data which simulates hand movement if performed on a
second user input device; and
a virtualization module of an operating system of the
computer system, the virtualization module configured to
determine automatically which form of user input as between
said first or second position data to provide a process running in
the foreground of the computer system and to provide
determined position data to the process in a form determined,
wherein the virtualization module is configured to provisionally
provide the first position data to the process and thereafter to
assessfeedbackfrom the computer system that indicates whether
the first position data was consumed by the process and
responsive thereto if the first position data is not consumed by
the process then to cease providing the first position data and
commence providing the second position data to the process.
6. Implemented on a computer system operatively coupled to
a hand-actuated input device, a method to provide user input to a
process running on the computer system, the method comprising:
determining automatically which form of user input to
provide the process running on the computer system, the user
input including first position data from a first input device and
second position data which is a translated form of said first
position data based on said user input being made on a simulated
second input device, wherein the determining comprises ceasing
providing the first position data in a first form and providing the
second position data in a second form if the process encounters
an error after the first position data in the first form is provided;
and
providing the first or the second position data to the
process in the form determined.
3
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 6, 8, 9, 11-15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Safai (US 2006/0250357 Al;
Nov. 9, 2006) and Terashima (US 6,515,689 Bl; Feb. 4, 2003). Non-Final
Act. 4--10.
2. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Safai, Terashima, and Harries et al. (US
2004/0119685 Al; June 24, 2004) ("Harries"). Non-Final Act. 10-15.
3. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Safai, Terashima, and Wolfe et al. (US 6,037,930;
Mar. 14, 2000) ("Wolfe"). Non-Final Act. 15-16.
4. Claims 19, 20 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Safai, Terashima, Wolfe, and Harries. Non-Final
Act. 16-21.
5. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Safai, Terashima, and Huppi et al. (US 7,633,076 B2;
Dec. 15, 2009) ("Huppi"). Non-Final Act. 20-21.
ANALYSIS 2
Claims 6--12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 22
Claim 6 recites, in relevant part, automatically determining which
form of user input to provide the process running on the computer system
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
September 19, 2017 ("Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed December 1,
2017 ("Ans."); and the Non-Final Office Action, mailed April 19, 2017
("Non-Final Act."), from which this Appeal is taken. Appellants did not file
a Reply Brief. To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
4
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
"wherein the determining comprises ceasing providing the first position data
in a first form and providing the second position data in a second form if the
process encounters an error after the first position data in the first form is
provided." Appellants argue neither Safai nor Terashima, alone or in
combination teaches this limitation. Br. 13-16. In particular, Appellants
assert Terashima, as relied on by the Examiner, "merely teaches changing a
mouse pointer to a hand representing a joystick operation mode when a
mouse button is clicked." Br. 14--15 (citing Terashima, col. 4, 11. 1-9,
Figs. 4(A) and 4(B)). Appellants argue that determining if a mouse has been
used to activate ( or click) a button or icon does not teach "ceasing providing
the first position data in a first form," as recited by claim 6. Br. 15.
Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding
Terashima teaches "providing the second position data in a second form if
the process encounters an error after the first position data in the first form is
provided." Br. 15-16. Specifically, Appellants assert Terashima simply
describes determining whether a mouse has been clicked when the mouse
pointer is located in a field frame. Br. 15-16. If so, Terashima describes
changing the shape of the mouse pointer to indicate joystick operation has
been set. Br. 15-16 (citing Terashima, Fig. 3). Thus, Appellants assert
Terashima fails to teach the process encountering an error after the first
position data in the first form has been provided. Br. 16.
In response, the Examiner annotates the flowchart of Appellants'
Figure 3 to identify when user input is provided in a first form and when it is
substantive arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are
considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017).
5
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
provided in a second form. Ans. 3. The Examiner's annotated version of
Appellants' Figure 3 is reproduced below:
Figure 3 of Appellants' Specification illustrates an exemplary
flowchart of Appellants' claimed invention. Spec. ,r 4. The Examiner has
added annotations to identify a first form of input (for example, carried out
in steps 72, 74, and 76) and a second form of input (carried out in step 68).
Ans. 3, 6. The Examiner explains the "error" recited in claim 6, and
illustrated at step 66 of Figure 3, is interpreted as a trigger condition to
switch between the first input form and second input form. Ans. 6.
6
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
The Examiner also provides an annotated version of Figure 3 from
Terashima (Ans. 5), reproduced below:
F t G. 3
i
r···''"~ ... u...... .. ....).:
I
....... .. ·""""--'
.~
C;l~GUi.~·; ~ f' ,., ('IJ:T r:t~ r"DA t;.·-·1:wn.1
POS moN OF [M}LISt POHHCR.
w - r~
I ~ ...... ...,., ...... -~.: -........... ,.., ......... ~ .... i r-::-::i6.J OIJfFUl ilAlA i :;:u;, 1 COM P%l
------.. ·--·-----.. • ... , ......... "'""'".I
Figure 3 of Terashima illustrates a flowchart for the method of
enablingjoystick operation. Terashima, col. 2, 11. 20-21. The Examiner has
added annotations to identify a first form of input (for example, carried out
7
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
in steps S22, S24, and S26) and a second form of input ( carried out in step
68). Ans. 3, 6. Applying the interpretation of the claimed "error" as a
trigger condition, the Examiner finds the click functionality recited in S 18 of
Figure 3 of Terashima is a trigger condition for the execution of a first form
or second form. Ans. 6.
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the
Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in light of the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We are mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a
broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant
or patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007) ( citation omitted).
Here, the Examiner broadly, but reasonably, construes an error as a
trigger condition. Ans. 6. The Examiner has shown that such a construction
is consistent with Appellants' Specification (i.e., Fig. 3) and the claimed
invention. See Ans. 3---6. Further, Appellants do not act as their own
lexicographers by expressly assigning any special meaning to an "error."
Rather, in describing the conditions assessed by the virtualization module,
the Specification states the virtualization module may have knowledge of
"whether the offering of such input [(i.e., user input)] triggers an error."
Spec. ,r 17 (emphasis added). Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's
construction. Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error.
8
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
Under the Examiner's construction of an error being a trigger
condition between a first user input form and a second user input form, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that Terashima teaches after encountering
a mouse click (i.e., error/trigger condition), user input in a first form ceases
and user input in a second form begins.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 6. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 7-12,
14, 15, 17, 18, and 22, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and
were not argued separately. Br. 18-19, 23, 32-33; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends indirectly from claim 6 and further recites the
determination of which form of user input to provide comprises "assessing
feedback from the computer system that indicates whether the first position
data in the first form was consumed by the process." Referring to Figure 3
of Terashima, Appellants argue Terashima merely determines whether a
mouse has been clicked while the mouse pointer is positioned in a field
frame, but is otherwise silent regarding assessing feedback from the
computer system and determining if a form of input is consumed by the
process. Br. 17-18.
The Examiner again directs attention to Figure 3 of Terashima.
Ans. 7-8. In particular, the Examiner explains that steps S 18 and S20 act as
feedback from the computer system "since the execution of steps 28, 30 and
32 (2nd form as annotated above in [F]igure 3) and steps 22, 24 and 26 (1st
9
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
form as annotated above in [F]igure 3) depend from the feedback and/or
response of steps S18 and S20." Ans. 7. More specifically, the Examiner
finds steps S22, S24, and S26 (i.e., first position data in the first form) is
consumed by the process when S 18 is determined to be "N" and S20 is
determined to be "Y." Ans. 7. Conversely, steps S22, S24, and S26 are not
consumed by the process if steps S 18 and S20 are not passed (i.e., S 18 is
"Y" and/or S20 is "N"). Ans. 8. In other words, providing first position
data in the first form ceases and second position data in the second form is
provided if first position data of the first form is not consumed by the
process.
Contrary to Appellants' argument that Terashima is silent regarding
assessing feedback, the Examiner finds ( as explained above) by proceeding
through steps S 18-S26, Terashima teaches, or reasonably suggests, the data
has been consumed by the process. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner's findings. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 21
Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that the cited prior art
teaches:
[T]he virtualization module is configured to provisionally
provide the first position data to the process and thereafter to
assess feedback from the computer system that indicates whether
the first position data was consumed by the process and
responsive thereto if the first position data is not consumed by
the process then to cease providing the first position data and
commence providing the second position data to the process.
10
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
Br. 19-23. Similar to the arguments advanced with respect to claim 13,
Appellants assert T erashima fails to teach assessing feedback from the
computer that indicates whether the first position data was consumed by the
process. Br. 20-22. Additionally, Appellants contend the difference
between detecting a mouse click (as in Terashima) and assessing whether
first position data was consumed is significant. Br. 21-22. Specifically,
Appellants posit "consumption feedback may indicate that an input event
has been removed from a queue of unconsumed input events ... [or] some
of the events in the queue may be inconsumable." Br. 21.
As an initial matter, it is well settled that mere attorney arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
(attorney argument is not evidence). Further, we note, as does the Examiner
(see Ans. 9), claim 1 does not recite that consumption feedback may indicate
an event has been removed from a queue of unconsumed events or that an
event is inconsumable. Thus, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of
error because they are not commensurate in scope with the claim language.
See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing
in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Further, for similar reasons discussed above regarding claim 13, we
do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of Examiner error that
Terashima fails to teach assessing feedback from the computer that indicates
whether the first position data was consumed by the process.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3-5,
11
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
and 21, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued
separately with particularity. See Br. 23, 31; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 19, 20, and 23
Claim 19 recites, in relevant part, "automatically determining that a
foreground process on the computer system is able to consume user input in
a form that specifies absolute position with respect to a first user input
device based on feedback that the computer system is unable to consume
forms specifying relative position." Further, claim 19 recites a similar
limitation regarding the ability to consume user input as relative position
information: "automatically determining that the foreground process on the
computer system is able to consume user input in a form that specifies
relative position with respect to a second user input device based on
feedback that the computer system is unable to consume forms specifying
absolute position." In other words, based on feedback that a process is
unable to consume position data information in a particular form (i.e.,
relative position or absolute position), a determination is automatically made
that the process is able to consume position data information in the other
form (i.e., absolute position or relative position).
Safai, as relied on by the Examiner (see Non-Final Act. 16-17),
describes switching between different modes of operation for an input
device "depending upon one or more parameters of the pointing device
and/or portable electronic device." Safai ,r 17. Safai describes the pointing
device operating in two different modes of operation: (i) a mode resembling
mouse-type behavior, and (ii) a mode resembling joystick-type behavior.
12
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
Safai ,r 17. Thus, the Examiner finds Safai teaches different forms
associated with a user input device ( e.g., relative position data from a mouse
pointer or absolute position data from a joystick). Non-Final Act. 16-17
( citing Safai ,r,r 1 7, 3 7, 69); see also Spec. ,r 14 ( describing examples forms
of data as "absolute position data typical of a joystick control, and ...
relative position data typical of a pointing device"). Further, Safai teaches
use of a dynamic parameter that "enables switching between different modes
of operation for [the] pointing device dynamically." Safai ,r 69. "In one
embodiment, a mode of operation for the pointing device is chosen
automatically ... with switching between different modes of operation
occurring transparently to the user and based on criteria of mode manager
250, such as an event (via event module 256) or application (via application
parameter 354)." Safai ,r 69. Safai further describes the application
parameter (354) enables an application to trigger the input device to switch
from one mode of operation to another. Safai ,r 68.
Additionally, as described above, the Examiner relies on Figure 3 (and
its associated description) of Terashima to teach consuming user input in a
form that specifies position information in one form based on feedback that
position information in a second (different) form cannot be consumed. Non-
Final Act. 18.
Appellants assert "none of the disclosed criteria for switching modes
[ of Safai] teaches or suggests automatically determining that a process on
the computer system is able to consume user input in a form that specifies
position with respect to a first user input device." Br. 27 (emphasis
omitted). Additionally, Appellants present similar arguments as those
advanced regarding claims 1 and 6 that Terashima merely discloses
13
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
determining whether a mouse has been clicked while the mouse pointer is
located in a field frame. Br. 28-29. Thus, Appellants contend Terashima
fails to teach the claimed "consum[ing] user input." Br. 28-29.
For similar reasons to those discussed regarding claims 1 and 6, we do
not find Appellants' arguments directed to Terashima persuasive of
Examiner error. To the extent Appellants argue that Safai also does not
teach consuming user input, we note that such arguments are not responsive
to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. See Non-Final Act. 17-18
(indicating that "Safai does not appear to specifically disclose" consuming
user input in a first form based on feedback that user input in a second form
cannot be consumed). Nonetheless, we find Safai teaches or reasonably
suggests the application parameter indicates (i.e., provides feedback) if an
application is unable to consume data in a particular form, the mode of
operation of the input device is switched from providing that form. Safai
,r,r 68---69; see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)
( explaining an obviousness analysis "need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ").
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 19. Additionally, we also sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
20 and 23, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not
argued separately with particularity. See Br. 30, 33-34; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
14
Appeal2018-003510
Application 14/158,579
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-15, and 17-
23.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
15