12606860 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2017)

Ex Parte Ikeda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 10, 2017

12606860 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 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. 12/606,860 10/27/2009 Tetsuo IKEDA 1946-0206 3539 142241 7590 01/10/2017 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 1765 Greensboro Station Place Suite 320 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 EXAMINER RAYAN, MIHIR K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/10/2017 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 TETSUO IKEDA, RYU AOYAMA, and HIROSHI UENO ____________________ Appeal 2016-001822 Application 12/606,860 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–19, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-001822 Application 12/606,860 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Application is directed to touch panels for “performing retrieval of displayed contents with easy operation, and capable of easily performing a fine adjustment of a reproduction speed.” Spec. ¶ 7. Claims 1, 7, and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference: 1. An information processing apparatus, comprising: an input position detecting unit that detects the position and number of operators positioned on an operation input unit; a direction detecting unit that detects a moving direction of at least one of the operators based on a time variation of the detected position of the at least one operator; a reproduction speed changing unit that changes a reproduction speed of media playback by an application, a contents of the media playback varying with elapse of time, according to the number of operators detected by the input position detecting unit; and a reproducing direction changing unit that changes a reproducing direction of the contents according to the moving direction of the at least one operator detected by the direction detecting unit, wherein at least one of the input position detecting unit, the direction detecting unit, the reproduction speed changing unit, and the reproducing direction changing unit is implemented via a processor. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS Claims 1–4 and 6–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muylkens (US 2008/0225013 A1; Sept. 18, 2008), Mills (US 5,202,961; Apr. 13, 1993), and Christie (US 2008/0165141 A1; July 10, 2008). Final Act. 4. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muylkens, Mills, Christie, and Rajkowski (US 2004/0021633 A1; Feb. 5, 2004). Final Act. 14. Appeal 2016-001822 Application 12/606,860 3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 because “one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not have been lead, considering the single-image scroll movement speed gestures as taught by Christie, to then implement such gestures into the video playback speed control teachings of Muylkens in view of Mills.” Reply Br. 5. Particularly, Appellants contend “different gestures are utilized for controlling different types of functions in Muylkens and Christie,” and, therefore, “the Examiner cannot reasonably suggest that the gestures that control the different respective ‘functions’ [of the prior art] could possibly be interchangeable.” App. Br. 14. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Both the Examiner and Appellants agree that Muylkens and Christie teach touchscreens that utilize gestures (such as a contact or swipe of a finger) to control various functions on a display device (such as fast forwarding a video or scrolling a page). See App. Br. 13–14; Final Act. 5–7 (citing Muylkens ¶¶ 33–47; Christie ¶ 81). The Examiner further finds that because the references are each “directed to touch-sensitive media devices,” one of ordinary skill would have recognized that “modifying Muylkens’ video player to include differentiating between single and multi-touch inputs would have yielded Appeal 2016-001822 Application 12/606,860 4 predictable results,” as taught by Christie.1 Ans. 14; see also Christie Fig. 7H. We agree with the Examiner, and find Appellants have not shown that “modifying Muylkens to include changing a reproduction speed according to the number of fingers (or operators) detected by differentiating between single and multi-touch gestures” (Ans. 14) was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–19 (2007)). CONCLUSION Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Muylkens, Mills, and Christie teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claim 1, and claims 2–4 and 6–19, which were not separately argued. See App. Br. 15. We also do not find the Examiner erred in relying on the findings in Muylkens, Mills, and Christie discussed above for the limitations inherited by dependent claim 5, for the reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 1. See Ans. 15; App. Br. 15–16. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19 is affirmed. 1 We note Christie provides that differentiating among various inputs can beneficially “allow a user to more efficiently and accurately effect intended operations.” Christie ¶ 9. Appeal 2016-001822 Application 12/606,860 5 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED