Ex Parte Hunt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2019

13537558 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/537,558 06/29/2012
58127 7590 02/27/2019
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Miles Hunt
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.
RPS920120008USNP(7 l 0.195) 8387
EXAMINER
MISHLER, ROBIN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN MILES HUNT, JOHN WELDON NICHOLSON,
JAMES STEPHEN RUTLEDGE, and SONG WANG
Appeal2018-000513 1
Application 13/537,5582
Technology Center 2600
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14, and 16-20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Our Decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June
19, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Oct. 16, 2017), and Specification
("Spec.," filed June 29, 2012), as well as the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.,"
mailed Aug. 15, 2017) and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Jan.
19, 2017).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo (Singapore)
PTE, LTD. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-000513
Application 13/537,558
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a touch screen display device
having a touch sensitive surface that accepts touch inputs based on
exceeding certain pressure thresholds. Abstract, Spec. ,r 1. Based on the
touch inputs, a variety of functions can be performed, such as scrolling or
zooming. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the
appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A method, comprising:
displaying content on a touch screen display of a device;
accepting touch input exceeding a touch detection
threshold at a touch sensitive surface of the device, wherein the
touch detection threshold is a pressure threshold;
performing a first action to displayed content associated
with the touch input based upon the touch input being applied
to a location at the touch sensitive surface exceeding a first
touch detection threshold;
wherein the first action performed comprises magnifying
the displayed content associated with the touch input; and
performing a second action to the displayed content
based upon the touch input being applied to substantially the
same location at the touch sensitive surface, being sustained at
substantially the same location, and exceeding a second touch
detection threshold, wherein the second touch detection
threshold requires more pressure than the first touch detection
threshold;
wherein the second action is different from the first
action of magnifying the displayed content associated with the
touch input.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
( 1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14, and 16-2 0 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ording et
al. (US 2010/0235735 Al; published Sept. 16, 2010) (hereinafter "Ording"),
2
Appeal 2018-000513
Application 13/537,558
Rimas-Ribikauskas et al. (US 2006/0132455 Al; published June 22, 2006)
(hereinafter "Rimas"), and Kontio (US 2012/0068938 Al; published Mar.
22, 2012) (hereinafter "Kontio").
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ording, Rimas,
Kontio, and Lee et al. (US 2011/0163986 Al; published July 7, 2011)
(hereinafter "Lee"). The Examiner clarified in the Answer that this rejection
includes the Kontio reference as "the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 12
include[ s] the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 which both include
the reference Kontio." Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 4. Thus, Appellants'
argument that this rejection should include Kontio or be reversed is moot.
App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 15-16. To the extent that Appellants consider the
Examiner's clarification a new ground of rejection, Appellants could have
filed a petition with the Director or substantively addressed Kontio in the
Reply. See MPEP § 1207.03 (b)3 (9th ed., Rev. 7, Nov. 2015). Appellants
did neither of these things. Reply Br. 15-16.
3 "3 7 CPR 41.40 sets forth the exclusive procedure for an appellant to
request review of the primary examiner's failure to designate a rejection as a
new ground of rejection via a petition to the Director under 37 CPR 1.181.
This procedure should be used if an appellant feels an answer includes a new
ground of rejection that has not been designated as such and wishes to
reopen prosecution so that new amendments or evidence may be submitted
in response to the rejection. However, if appellant wishes to submit only
arguments, the filing of a petition under 3 7 CPR 1.181 would not be
necessary because appellant may submit the arguments in a reply brief."
MPEP § I207.03(b) (9th ed., Rev. 7, Nov. 2015).
3
Appeal 2018-000513
Application 13/537,558
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions for the reasons discussed below.
(1) Touch detection threshold
Appellants argue that Ording fails to teach or suggest "accepting
touch input exceeding a touch detection threshold at the touch sensitive
surface of the information handling device, wherein the touch detection
threshold is a pressure threshold," as recited in independent claim 1. App.
Br. 16; Reply Br. 18. More specifically, Appellants argue that the cited
portions of Ording "merely teach[] that a touch-sensitive surface can detect
and accept contact on the touch screen." App. Br. 16 (citing Ording ,r,r 102-
103). Appellants also argue that "[t]he only mention of a threshold in
Ording is a speed threshold." Id. ( citing Ording ,r 334).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Ording, Rimas, and
Kontio teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Ording teaches detecting touch input based on "whether
or not the current touch exceeds a touch detection threshold," i.e., "when the
touch exceeds the touch detection threshold, the touch registers as a touch
... and when the touch does not exceed the touch detection threshold, the
touch does not register as a touch." Ans. 3 (citing ,r,r 102-103, 116-117).
The Examiner finds that Rimas and Kontio also disclose having a touch
detection threshold, such as a touch detection pressure threshold. Id. ( citing
Rimas Fig. 3; Kontio ,r 36).
We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own.
For example, we agree that Ording teaches that its touch screen device can
4
Appeal 2018-000513
Application 13/537,558
detect touch contact on its touch-sensitive surface "using any of a plurality
of touch sensing technologies now known or later developed," such as
capacitive, resistive, and infrared technologies. Ording ,r,r 102-103, 116.
This teaching discloses a touch detection threshold, as the Examiner finds,
because a touch only registers as a touch input when it exceeds some
detection threshold; otherwise no touch is registered. Id. Kontio and Rimas
similarly teach a touch detection threshold, as well as that the threshold can
be based on pressure. See Rimas Fig. 3; Kontio ,r 36. Thus, the combined
teachings of Ording, Rimas, and Kontio teach the disputed limitation. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) (finding the relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the references).
(2) Performing a first action
Appellants argue that Ording and Rimas fail to teach or suggest
"performing a first action to displayed content associated with the touch
input based upon the touch input ... exceeding a first touch detection
threshold[,] wherein the first action performed comprises magnifying the
displayed content associated with the touch input," as recited in independent
claim 1. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 18-19. Appellants argue that Ording
teaches "a press and hold gesture[,which] is clearly not a pressure based
input." App. Br. 17 (citing Ording ,r 235). Appellants argue that "Rimas
teaches that the pressure input selects objects" and that "different pressure
inputs result in different variations of the same action, specifically a
selection action. Rimas never discussed magnifying the text." Id. (citing
Rimas ,r,r 71-72 ).
5
Appeal 2018-000513
Application 13/537,558
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combination of Ording,
Rimas, and Kontio teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 4; Final
Act. 3. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Ording teaches
"magnifying displayed content associated with the touch input," "wherein
finger contact triggers the magnification bubble of the text associated with
the touch input." Ans. 4 (citing Ording Fig. 5B); Final Act. 3 (citing Ording
Figs. 5B, 5N, ,r,r 235, 267). We also agree with the Examiner's finding that
Rimas and Kontio "both disclose magnification of the display based on
touch input" using pressure thresholds. Ans. 4 ( citing Rimas ,r 77; Kontio
,r 36); see also Rimas ,r 77 ("Additionally, pressure based selection may
allow for a selection zoom. For example, while pressing harder on a pixel to
select it, the screen may zoom in farther allowing greater detail to be
displayed."); Kontio ,r 3 6 ("Different magnitudes of force may be associated
with different functions or input. For example, ... a higher force may result
in zooming."). Thus, the combined teachings of Ording, Rimas, and Kontio
teach the disputed limitation. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
(3) Performing a second action
Appellants argue that the combination of Ording, Rimas, and Kontio
fails to teach or suggest "performing a second action ... based upon the
touch input ... exceeding a second touch detection threshold, ... wherein
the second action is different from the first action of magnifying the
displayed content associated with the touch input," as recited in independent
claim 1. App. Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 19-21. In particular, Appellants argue
"Kontio never teaches that a first action is magnifying," but instead "teaches
a first action of selecting information." App. Br. 18 (citing Kontio ,r 36).
6
Appeal 2018-000513
Application 13/537,558
Appellants also argue that Kontio does not teach that the second action is
different than the first action. Id.
In addition, Appellants argue that Kontio "only teaches a single
[pressure] threshold," rather than "two touch detection thresholds, which are
separate from the touch contact," as required by the claims. Id. at 18-19
(citing Kontio ,r 36). According to Appellants, "[a]t best, Kontio teaches a
single threshold where one action occurs if the input is less than the
threshold and another action occurs if the input is greater than the
threshold." Id. at 19 (citing Kontio ,r 36).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Ording, Rimas, and
Kontio teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 4.
In particular, the Examiner finds that "Kontio discloses performing different
actions based on different forces applied to the touch input screen," i.e.,
"different magnitudes of force are associated with different functions or
input, including e.g. panning, zooming, highlighting and performing a
selection option." Ans. 4 (citing Kontio ,r 36). The Examiner finds that
Kontio teaches, for example, that "the first function triggered is zooming and
the second function triggered is selection, wherein each function has an
associated threshold to determine whether or not that function is triggered."
Id. at 4--5 (citing Kontio ,r 36). In other words, the Examiner finds that
Kontio teaches that different functions are triggered by different amounts of
pressure. Id. at 4 (citing Kontio ,r 36). In addition, the Examiner finds "that
Rimas also discloses triggering different functionality based on different
amounts of pressure applied." Id. at 5 (citing Rimas Figs. 3, 9-11).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Rather, we agree with the
Examiner that Kontio teaches "[ d]ifferent magnitudes of force may be
7
Appeal 2018-000513
Application 13/537,558
associated with different functions." Kontio ,r 36. To wit, Kontio teaches
that, "[ f]or example, a lesser force may result in panning, and a higher force
may result in zooming." Id. Accordingly, Kontio teaches two pressure
based touch detection thresholds- a lesser force threshold which results in
one action ( e.g., panning) and a higher force threshold which results in a
second action (i.e., zooming). Id. In addition, Kontio teaches, contrary to
Appellants' argument, that these two pressure based touch detection
thresholds are in addition to "a detected touch" (i.e., the touch contact).
Lastly, Kontio' s example actions are different from each other with
"panning" turning the focus and "zooming" magnifying the focus. Id.
Whether panning or zooming is the action associated with the first threshold
is an obvious variant. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417
(2007) ("When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
same field or a different one.").
(4) Combining Ording. Rimas. and Kontio
Appellants argue that the Examiner's stated motivation to combine
Ording, Rimas, and Kontio does not "articulate[] a reason why a person
skilled in the art would combine the prior art references, does not have
adequate evidentiary basis for that finding, and has not provided a
satisfactory explanation for the motivation finding that includes an express
and rational connection with the evidence presented." App. Br. 14--15
(citation omitted); see also Reply Br. 16-17. In particular, Appellants argue
that "nothing in Ording, Rimas, or Kontio would suggest that the three
should be combined to teach or suggest the claimed limitations. For
example, Ording never mentions pressure thresholds." App. Br. 15. As to
8
Appeal 2018-000513
Application 13/537,558
Rimas, Appellants argue that "[ w ]hile Rimas does teach a pressure based
input, ... nothing in either Rimas or Ording suggests why the press and hold
gesture of Ording should be replaced by the pressure based input of Rimas."
Id.
The Examiner finds that at the time of the claimed invention, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the relevant
teachings of Rimas and Kontio in the device of Ording. Ans. 2-3. The
Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do
so "to provide the ability to include the pressure thresholds of Rimas in the
device of Ording, ... [to] provid[ e] the user with more functionality based
on the degree of pressure of the touch input." Id. at 2-3 (citing Rimas Figs.
3, 10-11, ,r 49). The Examiner similarly finds that one of ordinary skill
would have been motivated to combine Kontio's teachings with Ording "to
provide the ability to have different magnitudes of force of the touch input
result in different functions ... to provide[] the user with more functionality
based on the degree of pressure of the touch input." Id. at 3 (Kontio ,r 36).
We disagree with Appellants that the Examiner's reasoning provides
insufficient motivation to combine the relevant teachings of Ording, Rimas,
and Kontio. Rather, the Examiner provides "articulated reasoning [(i.e., to
provide[] the user with more functionality)] with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Using pressure based inputs in lieu of contact gestures
to perform actions is a predictable variation that would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability."). This predictably is especially present here in light of
9
Appeal 2018-000513
Application 13/537,558
Ording' s teaching that its touch screen device "may detect contact and any
movement or breaking thereof using any of a plurality of touch sensing
technologies now known or later developed" and Kontio' s and Rimas'
teachings that having multiple pressure based inputs was known for touch
screen devices. See Ording ,r 103; Kontio ,r 3 6; Rimas Figs. 3, 10-11, ,r 49.
CONCLUSION
Based on our reasoning above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as (i) independent claims 11 and 20, and
(ii) dependent claims 4, 6-10, 14, and 16-19, as Appellants do not provide
separate arguments for their patentability. We also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 2 and 12, as Appellants do not provide
separate arguments for their patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14,
and 16-20.
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
10