Ex Parte Kornmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

12546245 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/546,245 08/24/2009
100462 7590 02/29/2016
Dority & Manning P,A, and Google Inc,
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Kornmann
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.
GGL-346A 3041
EXAMINER
GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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 DAVID KORNMANN, PETER BIRCH,
and MICHAEL MORTON
Appeal2014-000570
Application 12/546,245
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN G. NEW, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-31, 33, and 34, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Google Inc. (Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-000570
Application 12/546,245
Claimed Subject Matter
The invention generally relates to user interface gestures for moving a
virtual camera on a mobile device. (Title.) Claims 1 and 19, reproduced
below with disputed limitations emphasized, are illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for navigating a virtual
camera in a three dimensional environment on a mobile device
having a touch screen, comprising:
(a) receiving a user input indicating that two objects have
touched a view of the mobile device and the two objects have
moved relative to each other;
(b) determining a speed that the objects have moved
relative to each other based on the user input;
( c) determining a speed of the virtual camera based on
the speed of the objects that the objects have moved relative to
each other; and
( d) moving the virtual camera within the three
dimensional environment according to the speed of the virtual
camera determined in (c).
19. A computer-implemented method for navigating a virtual
camera in a three dimensional environment on a mobile device
having a touch screen, comprising:
(a) receiving a user input indicating that a user has
selected a position on a view of the mobile device;
(b) determining a target location based on the position of
the view of the mobile device selected by the user;
( c) moving the virtual camera in the three dimensional
environment toward the target location; and
( d) rotating the virtual camera in the three dimensional
environment toward the target location.
2
Appeal2014-000570
Application 12/546,245
Rejections
Claims 1-16, 18-31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bradski (US 7,271,795 B2; issued Sept. 18, 2007) and
Han et al. (US 2008/0180406 Al; published July 31, 2008) ("Han"). (Final
Act. 2-10.)
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bradski, Han, and Schmidt et al. (US 2004/0125114 A 1;
published July 1, 2004) ("Schmidt"). (Final Act. 11-12.)
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bradski, Han, and Westerman et al. (US 2008/0042987 Al; published
Feb. 21, 2008) ("Westerman"). (Final Act. 12-13.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (Br. 6-16). We are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and in
the Answer (see Ans. 15-19). We highlight and address specific arguments
and findings for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-18, and 34
Appellants argue Bradski and Han fail to teach or suggest determining
a speed that the objects have moved relative to each other, determining a
speed of the virtual camera based on the speed of the objects, and moving
the virtual camera within the three dimensional environment according to
the speed of the virtual camera, as recited in claim 1. (Br. 7-11.) Regarding
3
Appeal2014-000570
Application 12/546,245
Bradski, Appellants argue the device receives input through motion or
orientation of the device, rather than through objects touching the touch
screen. (Br. 8.) Appellants acknowledge Bradski's teaching that "the angle
of rotation determines the speed at which the data scrolls on the display
screen" (Bradski 3:64--66), but argue this is not related to receiving a user
input indicating that two objects have touched a view of the mobile device or
determining a speed that the objects have moved relative to each other, as
recited in claim 1. (Br. 8-9.) Appellants also contend "Bradski determines
a speed at which data scrolls on a display screen, which is not related to, and
much less teaches or suggests, 'determining a speed that the objects have
moved relative to each other based on the user input."' (Br. 9; see also Br.
11.) Regarding Han, Appellants argue paragraph 58 of Han teaches the rate
of rotation of an object is based on the amount of time an input is received,
such as a third finger touching a touch screen, not the speed that objects
move relative to each other. (Br. 9-10.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, which attack the
references individually. In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 426 (CCP A 1981)
("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.").
We agree with the Examiner's findings that Bradski teaches the speed of the
virtual camera may be controlled based on the speed of the input (Ans. 15
(citing Bradski 3:56-67)),2 and Han teaches receiving input for moving a
2 Appellants "do not concede" that Bradski's virtual window "can be
equated to a virtual camera as claimed" (Br. 11 ), but do not explain why the
Examiner's finding is in error. We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 2)
that Bradski' s virtual window is a virtual camera because it provides
different views of Bradski' s data depending on where it is directed.
4
Appeal2014-000570
Application 12/546,245
displayed object or scene based on movement of objects touching the screen
(id. (citing Han i-fi-139--40); Ans. 16 (citing Han i-fi-144--45)). Combining the
references to include as an input in Bradski the movement of objects such as
fingers on the touch screen, as taught by Han, results in determining a speed
that the objects have moved relative to each other, determining a speed of
the virtual camera based on the speed of the objects, and moving the virtual
camera within the three dimensional environment according to the speed of
the virtual camera, as recited in claim 1.
Appellants also argue the combination of Bradski and Han relies on
impermissible hindsight reasoning. (Br. 11-12.) In particular, Appellants
contend the Examiner does not articulate a reason why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would apply a particular finger gesture to control a virtual
camera, and Appellants assert that the Examiner's reasoning is circular and
conclusory. (Br. 12.)
The Examiner finds:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to include in the gestures disclosed by
Bradski configuring the movements of the virtual camera and
objects using the finger gestures disclosed by Han, to create the
gestures for users to change the input for controlling the display.
(Final Act. 3.) We find the Examiner's reasoning to be sufficient under the
circumstances of this case and supported by the teachings of Bradski and
Han. The Examiner's findings highlight the similarities between Bradski
and Han, which both receive various inputs to control the view on the
display, including the speed at which the camera or objects in view may
move. (See Final Act. 2-3 (citing Bradski 3:63---67; Han i-fi-139--40, 49, 58).)
This combination of familiar elements-Han's input using movement of
5
Appeal2014-000570
Application 12/546,245
objects on a touch screen with Bradski's movement of the virtual camera
based on the speed of the input---does no more than yield the predictable
result of moving the virtual camera based on the speed of the objects that
have moved relative to each other. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 416 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.").
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bradski and Han. For the same
reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4--11, and 13-16, which are not
separately argued.
Appellants argue claims 17 and 18 are patentable in view of their
dependence from claim 10, and that claim 34 is patentable in view of its
dependence from claim 1. (Br. 15.) Thus, for the same reasons as claim 1,
we sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bradski, Han, and Schmidt, and the rejection of claim 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bradski, Han, and
Westerman.
Claims 3 and 12
Appellants argue Bradski and Han do not teach or suggest
decelerating the virtual camera in the three dimensional environment
gradually, as recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in claim 12. (Br. 12-
13.) According to Appellants, Bradski at most describes detecting
acceleration of a device, which is different from decelerating the virtual
camera. (Br. 13 (citing Bradski 6:35--41).) We agree with the Examiner,
6
Appeal2014-000570
Application 12/546,245
however, that detecting absolute accelerations or absolute movement
necessarily detects decelerations. (See Final Act. 4 (citing Bradski 5 :4 7--48,
6:31--43).) Based on the combined teachings of Bradski and Han, as
discussed above for claim 1, detecting decelerations of the input (i.e.,
movement of objects on the touch screen as taught in Han) results in
deceleration of the virtual camera being controlled by the input.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bradski and Han.
Claims 19-31 and 33
Appellants argue scrolling a data set based on device tilt in Bradski
does not teach or suggest (c) moving the virtual camera in the three
dimensional environment toward the target location or ( d) rotating the
virtual camera in the three dimensional environment toward the target
location, as recited in claim 19. (Br. 14--15 (citing Bradski 3:35-52, 5:20-
25).) We agree with the Examiner, however, that Han's "PZR (pan, zoom,
rotation) control applied to 3D globe navigation" (Ans. 18) teaches moving
and rotating the virtual camera toward the target location. We note
Appellants do not file a reply brief to rebut the Examiner's findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bradski and Han. For the same reasons, we
sustain the rejection of claims 20-31 and 33, which are not separately
argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-31, 33, and 34.
7
Appeal2014-000570
Application 12/546,245
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
8