Ex Parte Han et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201613840770 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/840,770 03/15/2013 Byron B. Han P15258US1 1042 62579 7590 APPLE INC. c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 410 Seventeenth Street Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 EXAMINER OSORIO, RICARDO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2692 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): patentdocket @ bhfs. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BYRON B. HAN, CRAIG A. MARCINIAK, and JOHN A. WRIGHT Appeal 2016-003201 Application 13/840,770 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-003201 Application 13/840,770 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a “a touch processing module that processes touch screen input to determine if the manner in which the input was entered indicates that the user intends for execution of a particular command” (Abstract). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claims 11 and 21, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal: 11. A mobile communication device, comprising: a processor, a touch screen communicatively coupled to the processor, the touch screen adapted to receive input through a user contacting or nearly contacting a surface of the touch screen; a fingerprint sensor communicatively coupled to the processor and to the touch screen, the fingerprint sensor adapted to acquire fingerprint data for one or more fingertips of the user as the user enters touch input through the touch screen; and a touch processing module stored in a computer readable storage medium, the touch processing module comprising processor-executable code that, when executed by the processor, analyzes the fingerprint data to determine if the touch input was entered with a particular sequence of fingers that the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the 2 Appeal 2016-003201 Application 13/840,770 electronic device, wherein if a predetermined command is indicated by the fingerprint data, the processor executes the command. 21. A method of executing a command in an electronic device, comprising: receiving touch input through a touch screen component of an electronic device; acquiring fingerprint data from one or more fingertips of the user that are used to enter the touch input through the touch screen; acquiring force data as the touch input is entered through the touch screen, the force data indicating an amount of force applied by one or more fingertips of the user against the touch screen as the touch input was entered; analyzing the fingerprint data in combination with the force data to determine if the touch input was entered with a particular sequence of fingers and with a particular amount of force, both of which the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the electronic device; and if a predetermined command is indicated by the fingerprint data and the force data, executing the command. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1,2, 7—12, and 17—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kim (EP 2226741 Al; Sept. 8, 2010). Ans. 3.1 1 The Appeal Brief noted the Final Rejection included typographical errors in some of the paragraph citations to Kim. See App. Br. 5. The Examiner includes a corrected set of rejections in the Answer (see Ans. 2—6) that we review for this appeal. 3 Appeal 2016-003201 Application 13/840,770 Claims 3—6 and 13—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Kim in view of Reitnour (US 2011/0319051 A1; Dec. 29,2011). Ans. 5. ISSUES The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that: 1. Kim discloses the limitation recited in claim 11, and similarly recited in claim 1, of: analyzing] the fingerprint data to determine if the touch input was entered with a particular sequence of fingers that the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the electronic device; 2. Kim discloses the limitations recited in claim 7, and similarly recited in claim 17, of: acquiring timing data as the touch input is entered through the touch screen, the timing data comprising time intervals between the individual touches; [and] analyzing the fingerprint data in combination with the timing data to determine if the touch input was entered with a particular sequence of fingers and with a particular timing sequence that the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the electronic device; 3. Kim discloses the limitations recited in claim 8, and similarly recited in claim 18, of: acquiring force data as the touch input is entered through the touch screen, the force data indicating an amount of force applied by one or more fingertips of the user against the touch screen as the touch input was entered; [and] analyzing the fingerprint data in combination with the timing data and the force data to determine if the touch input 4 Appeal 2016-003201 Application 13/840,770 was entered with a particular sequence of fingers, with a particular timing sequence, and with a particular amount of force, all of which the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the electronic device; 4. Kim discloses “the predetermined command indicated by the fingerprint data, the timing data, and the force data is a panic command,” as recited in claim 9, and similarly recited in claim 19; and 5. Kim discloses the limitations recited in claim 21 of: acquiring force data as the touch input is entered through the touch screen, the force data indicating an amount of force applied by one or more fingertips of the user against the touch screen as the touch input was entered; [and] analyzing the fingerprint data in combination with the force data to determine if the touch input was entered with a particular sequence of fingers and with a particular amount of force, both of which the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the electronic device. ANALYSIS Issue 1 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that Kim anticipates the limitation of “analyzing] the fingerprint data to determine if the touch input was entered with a particular sequence of fingers that the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the electronic device,” as recited in claim 11 (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3). Appellants contend “Kim discloses a user selecting icons (or moving icons) with multiple fingers simultaneously touching, in order to execute the operation or function associated with at least one of the icons” (App. Br. 7) and that 5 Appeal 2016-003201 Application 13/840,770 “moving a multi-fmgerprint-touch input in different directions does not teach entering a sequence of fingerprints” (Reply Br. 7). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Kim teaches a fingerprint sequence “is the multi- fmgerprint touch input being detected along a first direction and/or along a second direction” (Ans. 7 (citing Kim 1106)). The claimed “particular sequence of fingers” encompasses the directional movement described by Kim in which the fingers are naturally arranged in a (physical and/or temporal) sequence. Such a sequence is not excluded by Appellants’ Specification that provides non-limiting examples, see, e.g., Spec. 146. Appellants’ argument regarding Kim’s directional multi-fingerprint touch input as not teaching entering a sequence of fingerprints is conclusory. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 11, and independent claim 1 commensurate in scope, as well as claims 2, 10, 12, and 20 not separately argued (see App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 8) and dependent claims 3—6 and 13—16 not separately argued (see App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 12). Issues 2—4 Regarding claim 7, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Kim anticipates the claimed “acquiring timing data” and “analyzing the fingerprint data” limitations (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 9). Appellants contend the paragraphs cited by the Examiner “do not teach or suggest acquiring timing data that includes the time intervals between the individual touches” 6 Appeal 2016-003201 Application 13/840,770 because the paragraphs “relate[] to sensing a multi-fmgerprint-touch input for more than a predefined amount of time” (Reply Br. 9 (citing Kim || 83, 106)). The Examiner finds the disputed limitations can be found in Kim (see Ans. 3^4 and 7 (collectively citing Kim|| 13, 83, 85, 86, 96, 106, 124)). We do not agree with this finding, as the cited portions of Kim do not disclose time intervals, but do relate to a time duration of touch (see Kim | 106). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 7 and claim 17 commensurate in scope, and reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 dependent therefrom. Issue 5 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Kim anticipates the claimed “acquiring force data” and “analyzing the fingerprint data” limitations (App. Br. 12—13, Reply Br. 11). Appellants contend: nothing found in paragraph [0032] teaches or suggests analyzing the fingerprint data in combination with the force data to determine if the touch input was entered with a particular sequence of fingers and with a particular amount of force, both of which the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the electronic device. App. Br. 13. Appellants also contend that the pressure discussed in paragraph [0085] relates to fingerprints having different patterns in consideration that fingerprints acquired even from the same finger can often appear different due to variations in the degree to which, and the pressure with which the finger is brought into contact with the display module. Reply Br. 11. 7 Appeal 2016-003201 Application 13/840,770 We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds the disputed limitations disclosed by Kim (Ans. 4 (citing Kim || 32, 83, 85, 86)). Kim discloses pressure sensor 143 may be installed in display module 151, so Kim will “differentiate a typical touch input from a pressure touch input, which is generated using a higher pressure level than that used to generate a typical touch input” (Kim 132). Further, as admitted by Appellants, Kim discloses that the amount of pressure sensed by the display module influences the fingerprint analysis. See Appellants’ description quoted above regarding paragraph 85. One skilled in the art would understand Kim as disclosing acquiring fingerprint data along with acquiring force data, which inherently requires analyzing the fingerprint data in combination with the force data to determine which fingers are applied to the display, because the particular force applied by the user could affect the determination of the particular sequence of fingers. For example, a low force applied could indicate a poor acquisition of fingerprint data. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21. CONCEUSIONS 1. The Examiner did not err in finding that Kim discloses the limitation recited in claim 11, similarly recited in claim 1, of: analyzing] the fingerprint data to determine if the touch input was entered with a particular sequence of fingers that the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the electronic device. 8 Appeal 2016-003201 Application 13/840,770 2. The Examiner erred in finding Kim discloses the limitations recited in claim 7, similarly recited in claim 17, of: acquiring timing data as the touch input is entered through the touch screen, the timing data comprising time intervals between the individual touches; [and] analyzing the fingerprint data in combination with the timing data to determine if the touch input was entered with a particular sequence of fingers and with a particular timing sequence that the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the electronic device. 3. The Examiner erred in finding Kim discloses the limitations recited in claim 8, similarly recited in claim 18, of: acquiring force data as the touch input is entered through the touch screen, the force data indicating an amount of force applied by one or more fingertips of the user against the touch screen as the touch input was entered; [and] analyzing the fingerprint data in combination with the timing data and the force data to determine if the touch input was entered with a particular sequence of fingers, with a particular timing sequence, and with a particular amount of force, all of which the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the electronic device. 4. The Examiner erred in finding Kim discloses “the predetermined command indicated by the fingerprint data, the timing data, and the force data is a panic command,” as recited in claim 9, similarly recited in claim 19. 5. The Examiner did not err in finding Kim discloses the limitations recited in claim 21 of: acquiring force data as the touch input is entered through the touch screen, the force data indicating an amount of force 9 Appeal 2016-003201 Application 13/840,770 applied by one or more fingertips of the user against the touch screen as the touch input was entered; [and] analyzing the fingerprint data in combination with the force data to determine if the touch input was entered with a particular sequence of fingers and with a particular amount of force, both of which the user has predetermined to indicate a command to be executed by the electronic device. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6, 10-16, 20, and 21 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7—9 and 17—19 is reversed. 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-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation