Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 17, 2017

13945229 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 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.
13/945,229 07/18/2013 Taeyeon KIM 0203-1116 1119
68103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
BORJA, ROBERTO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2017 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAEYEON KIM, SANGHYUK KOH, JIHYE MYUNG,
CHIHOON LEE, HYEMI LEE, YURAN KIM, and HYUNMI PARK
Appeal 2017-005302
Application 13/945,229
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—21, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2017-005302
Application 13/945,229
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to enabling a mobile terminal to detect a
hovering input of a pen and to display a different pointer according to an
attribute of the hovering input position. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A display control method for a mobile terminal, the
method comprising:
detecting a hovering input;
identifying a position of the hovering input;
determining an attribute associated with the hovering input
position; and
displaying a first pointer corresponding to the determined
attribute at the position of the hovering input.
Claims 1, 2, 11—13, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ronkainen (US 2013/0241827 Al; Sept. 19, 2013) and
Grossman (US 2006/0267966 Al; Nov. 30, 2006).
Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ronkainen, Grossman, and Simmons (US 2005/0206627
Al; Sept. 22, 2005).
Claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ronkainen, Grossman, and Samoff (US 2012/0210261
Al; Aug. 16, 2012).
Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ronkainen, Grossman, and Dilts (US 2012/0081389 Al;
Apr. 5, 2012).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ronkainen, Grossman, and Layered Windows (Vadim Gorokhovsky & Lou
2
Appeal 2017-005302
Application 13/945,229
Amadio, Layered Windows, Windows User Interface Technical
Articles 1-8 (2000)).
Claims 8—10 and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ronkainen, Grossman, and Van Ness (US 2006/0274057
Al; Dec. 7, 2006).
ANALYSIS
§103 Rejection—Ronkainen and Grossman
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 4—7; see
also Reply Br. 2-4) that the Examiner improperly combined Ronkainen and
Grossman to reject independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner acknowledged that Ronkainen does not disclose the
limitation “displaying a first pointer corresponding to the determined
attribute at the position of the hovering input,” and thus, relied upon
Figure 11 of Grossman, which illustrates four “L” shaped Hover Widgets.
(Final Act. 6.) The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious
. . . to have modified Ronkainen’s hover and cursor to incorporate the
teachings of Grossman cursor change.” (Id.) We agree with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions.
Ronkainen “relates to handling inputs on touch screens with hover
detection.” (| 1.) Ronkainen explains that “touch screens [are] able to
detect hover inputs as well as touch inputs, and detect the location of the
hover inputs in the plane of the touch screen,” such that “[h]over inputs are
inputs where a user’s digit (typically a finger) is located near to the touch
screen but is not touching the screen.” (| 3.) Figure 3 of Ronkainen
illustrates a flow chart for the operations of terminal 100 (]f 84), including
3
Appeal 2017-005302
Application 13/945,229
steps S9 and S10, such that “[i]f the hover input location is determined to
have changed at step S9, at step S10 the display is panned with movement of
the hover input location” and “the display is panned such that the text that is
shown magnified follows the location of the hover input” (195). Because
Ronkainen explains that the hover input mode magnifies text that follows the
location of the hover input, Ronkainen discloses the limitation “determining
an attribute associated with the hovering input position.”
Grossman relates to increasing capabilities of pen-based or touch­
screen interfaces, in particular, a “series of gestures in the hover or tracking
state ... to activate localized interface widgets, such as marking menus,
virtual scroll rings, etc.” (Abstract.) Grossman explains that “a Hover
Widget is invisible to the user during typical pen use, but appears when the
user begins to move the pen along a particular path in the tracking state, and
then activates when the user reaches the end of the path.” (1 11.) Figure 11
of Grossman illustrates four “L” shaped Hover Widgets, including a Tools
Hover Widget, an Edit Hover Widget, a Scroll Hover Widget, and a Right
Click Hover Widget. (176.) Because Grossman explains that a different
Hover Widget is associated with each different “L” shape, Grossman
discloses the limitation “displaying a first pointer corresponding to the
determined attribute at the position of the hovering input.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the Hover Widget of Grossman with the touch screen of
Ronkainen having hover inputs would improve Ronkainen by providing
additional functionality, such as tools, editing, scrolling, and right clicking
while in hover mode. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
4
Appeal 2017-005302
Application 13/945,229
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
(Final Act. 6) that modifying Ronkainen to incorporate the Hover Widget of
Grossman would have been obvious.
Appellants argue “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would clearly
recognize that substituting the Hover widget of Grossman for the cursor of
Ronkainen would neither be simple nor obtain predictable results” (App.
Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2—3) because “the resulting combination would
require that Ronkainen use the same input (a hover touch input) to trigger
both the zoom-pan mode and the display of the pointer” (App. Br. 5
(emphasis omitted)). In particular, Appellants argue:
If the same input was used to trigger two different functions, one
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the resulting
device would either i.) require means (e.g., additional
hardware/software) to differentiate between two different hover
inputs such that two different hover inputs could be mapped to
two different functions or ii.) attempt to trigger both the zoom-
pan mode and the displaying of the cursor every time any hover
input was detected.
(Id. at 5.) However, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining
Ronkainen and Grossman was based on incorporating the Hover Widget of
Grossman into the touch screen of Ronkainen, rather than substituting the
Hover Widget of Grossman for the hover input of Ronkainen. (Final
Act. 6.) Moreover, Ronkainen explains that the hover input is detected by
placing the user’s digit near the screen (| 3), which is different from
Grossman, because the Hover Widget is activated by moving the pen along a
particular path (| 11).
5
Appeal 2017-005302
Application 13/945,229
Appellants further argue “the entire purpose of Ronkainen is to use a
hover input in combination with a touch input” and “Ronkainen requires that
the hover input triggers a magnification of a portion of the display to
precisely identify where to apply a touch input to display a pointer.” (App.
Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3—4.) Accordingly, Appellants argue, “[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the hover input of Grossman
was substituted for the touch input of Ronkainen, the hypothetical
combination would, at best, significantly reduce input detection accuracy
required by Ronkainen or more likely render Ronkainen completely
inoperable.” (App. Br. 7.) Again, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for
combining Ronkainen and Grossman was based on incorporating the Hover
Widget of Grossman into the touch screen of Ronkainen, rather than
substituting the Hover Widget of Grossman for the hover input of
Ronkainen. (Final Act. 6.)
Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined Ronkainen and
Grossman to reject claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 12,
13, and 21 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to the dependent claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 12, 13, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Other §103 Rejections
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 3—10 and 14—20 separately (App. Br. 8), the arguments presented do
not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these
dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that
6
Appeal 2017-005302
Application 13/945,229
“Ronkainen and Grossman fail to disclose or render obvious each and every
feature of claims 1 and 11, the independent claims from which claims 3—10
and 14—20 variously depend” and “Simmons, Samoff, Dilts, Windows, and
Van Ness, singularly or in combination, fail to cure the above-noted
deficiencies of Ronkainen and Grossman.” {Id.) We are not persuaded by
these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11,
from which claims 3—10 and 14—20 depend. Accordingly, we sustain these
rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—21 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
7