Ex Parte Kravits et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2016

12932466 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/932,466 02/25/2011
63649 7590 02/05/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA A VENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Donald Kravits
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.
0260299 8590
EXAMINER
FLORES, ROBERTO W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/05/2016 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):
docketing@farj ami. com
farjamidocketing@yahoo.com
ffarj ami @farj ami. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONALD KRAVITS, GREGORY BUTKUS,
KAREN S. LEUNG, PETER RICCI,
MARCEL YN J. FLOYD, and CHARLES L. BUECHE
Appeal2014-001932
Application 12/932,466
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all claims pending in this application.
App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-001932
Application 12/932,466
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to an "interactive display floor with
multi-touch surround surfaces that [are] integrated with an interactive
computer system." Abstract. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 11 is
reproduced below for reference:
11. A system comprising:
an interactive video floor;
an interactive computer; and
a sensitized peripheral surface surrounding the interactive
video floor and configured to:
sense a contact;
send, to the interactive computer, a digital input
data based on the contact;
receive a digital output data from the interactive
computer, wherein the digital output data comprises a graphical
information; and
display the graphical information through the
interactive video floor.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wolfson (US 2008/0191864 Al; Aug. 14, 2008),
Andersen (US 2009/0075733 Al; Mar. 19, 2009), and Bilow (US
2007/0157095 Al; July 5, 2007). Final Act 3.
ANALYSIS
We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have
2
Appeal2014-001932
Application 12/932,466
made but chose not to make in the briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012). We adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions (see Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 3-5) as our own, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1
and 11, because "Bilow does not disclose 'a sensitized peripheral surface'
that surrounds 'an interactive video floor."' App. Br. 7 (emphases in
original). Particularly, Appellants contend "Bilow merely discloses a
portion of main graphical interface can be selected at the invocation of an
application that requires a dynamically orientable user interface for optimal
functionality, which can circumscribe a main part of the GUI." App. Br. 7
(emphases in original).
The Examiner finds that Bilow teaches or suggests a sensitized
peripheral surface as claimed:
Bilow explicitly discloses two regions, where a control region
621-626 generated by a graphical user interface (GUI)
surrounds an inner region 690 or main user interface, which
also has to be generated by a GUI. Consequently, Bilow clearly
provides controls for a game's application displayed along the
main user interface 620 as stated in [0057], where "along" is
defined as "surround" as depicted by Bilow in figures 6A-B, 7
A-B.
Ans. 4--5.
We agree, because Bilow provides a control region corresponding to a
"sensitized peripheral surface" which surrounds an inner region. See Bilow
i-f 57. This control region, when combined with Wolfson and Anderson,
teaches the claimed "sensitized peripheral surface surrounding the
interactive video floor." See Ans. 3-5 (citing Wolfson Fig. 16; Anderson
i-f 49). Further, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of error for not
3
Appeal2014-001932
Application 12/932,466
being commensurate in scope with the claim language. Claim 11 recites an
"interactive video floor" and a "sensitized peripheral surface," but does not
recite that both portions cannot be "part of' the same surface. Contra Reply
Br. 3.
Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1 and 11, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, which
depend therefrom and were not argued separately with particularity. See
Rep. Br. 2--4 and App. Br. 10.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
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
CJr
4