Ex Parte Ericson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

12542906 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/542,906 08/18/2009 Anders Ericson
23380 7590 06/24/2016
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 MAIN A VENUE
SUITE 1100
CLEVELAND, OH 44113-7213
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.
PS09 0590US1 6317
EXAMINER
AMINI, JAVID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 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):
patents@tuckerellis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDERS ERICSON and ANDREAS AGV ARD
Appeal2014-005010
Application 12/542,906
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a rejection of claims 1-
7.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to control of zooming in and out (enlarging and
reducing) content on a display. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
October 1, 2013), the Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed
January 2, 2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 13,
2014), and the Specification ("Spec.," originally filed August 18, 2009).
Appeal2014-005010
Application 12/542,906
1. A method for enlarging or reducing a size of a
displayed digital visual image within a display of a device, said
display having a touch sensitive portion reactive to a pointing
means, compnsmg:
identifying a time specific touch on a point on said touch
sensitive portion of said display with said pointing means;
determining that the identified time specific touch
corresponds to an enlarging operation or a reducing operation
of said displayed portion of said digital visual image within said
display screen; and
performing the enlarging operation or the reducing
operation based on the period of time said touch is applied to
said point.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Burrough (US 2010/0156818 Al; June 24, 2010) and Shimizu (US
2010/0026649 Al; Feb. 4, 2010). Non-Final Act. 2-5.
ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds Burrough teaches all features
(Non-Final Act. 2-3 (citing Burrough i-fi-f 17, 42, 43)) but fails to disclose
"based on the period of time said touch is applied to said point" (Non-Final
Act. 4). The Examiner finds Shimizu teaches this missing feature as steps
S603, S604, and S605 in Figure 6 and Figures lOA and lOB. Id.
Appellants argue Burrough fails to disclose "determining that the
identified time specific touch corresponds to an enlarging operation or a
reducing operation," as recited in claim 1. Br. 8-9. We are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds the first two steps of claim 1
(identifying and determining) simply require identifying a touch of the
2
Appeal2014-005010
Application 12/542,906
display at some (any) point in time and do not require any particular duration
of time and finds Burrough discloses a touch of the display at some time.
Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds Burrough determines whether a touch is
an enlargement or reduction operation based the touch of two fingers on the
display or the touch on finger at some distance from a reference point of the
display. Ans. 6 (citing Burrough i-fi-180, 81). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Burrough discloses "determining that the identified time
specific touch corresponds to an enlarging operation or a reducing
operation" as recited in claim 1.
Appellants further contend Shimizu fails to disclose "performing the
enlarging operation or the reducing operation based on the period of time
said touch is applied to said point," as recited in claim 1. Br. 9-10. We
remain unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner finds step
S603 of Shimizu's Figure 6 determines whether to fix or discard a selected
range based on the time duration of a user's hand contacting the touch
display. Ans. 6. The Examiner relies on Burrough for teaching performing
an enlarging or reducing operation. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans.
7) that the combination of Burrough and Shimizu teaches or suggests the
recited step of "performing the enlarging operation or the reducing operation
based on the period of time said touch is applied to said point" as recited in
claim 1.
Lastly, Appellants argue the Examiner's articulated reason for
motivating the ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the references is
speculative. Br. 11. More specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner's
reason for the proposed combination is conclusory because "that the alleged
combination of BURROUGH and SHIMIZU would solve problems not
3
Appeal2014-005010
Application 12/542,906
identified by either reference, and similarly, remove ditliculties for people
who have also not been identified by either reference." Br. 12. Again, we
remain unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner's articulated reason
that the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to combine the
references is supported by, at least, paragraphs 13 and 14 of Shimizu.2 Thus,
we find the Examiner has articulated a reason for the proposed combination
based on rational underpinnings - namely to provide gestures for
manipulation of a display (e.g., enlarging and reducing the image size) that
are simpler for persons with restrictions to utilize. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellants argue claims 2 and 3 together with claim 1 (Br. 10, 12) and
argue the Examiner erred rejecting claims 5-7 for essentially the same
reasons as claim 1 (Br. 13). Thus, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5-7 for the same reasons as claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites "the enlarging or
reducing operation is based to number of touches of said touch sensitive
portion." The Examiner finds Burrough Figures 12E and 12F disclose this
feature. Non-Final Act. 5. Appellants argue the Examiner erred because
"BURROUGH at i-f0082 discloses that the haptic effect becomes
progressively stronger at each finger (e.g. as they move apart)." Br. 12. We
are unpersuaded of Examiner error. As observed by Appellants, Burrough
i1 82 discloses enlarging/reducing the displayed map in response to a user's
2 More specifically, the Examiner's proposed reason for the combination is
nearly a direct quotation from paragraph 14 of Shimizu.
4
Appeal2014-005010
Application 12/542,906
two fingers moving apart/together on the touch display. App. Br. 12.
Burrough also discloses a number of sensed signals are generated as a user's
finger(s) move across the touch display (i.e., the enlarge/reduce a displayed
image) such that "the more signals, the more the user moved his or her
finger." Burrough i-f 42; see also Ans. 5---6.
Thus, we find Burrough also teaches "the enlarging or reducing
operation is based to number of touches of said touch sensitive portion" as
recited in claim 4. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 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
5