Ex Parte KUO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2016

13529182 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2016)

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.
13/529,182 06/21/2012 Margaret Elizabeth KUO 31234-0637001 4715
93377 7590 12/09/2016
RlarVRp.rrv T imiteH fFinneaan^
EXAMINER
2200 University Avenue East
Waterloo, ON N2K 0A7
BUKOWSKI, KENNETH
CANADA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2016 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
portfolioprosecution@blackberry.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARGARET ELIZABETH KUO,
SIMON MARTIN THORSANDER, and JEROME PASQUERO
Appeal 2016-002759
Application 13/529,182
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20. App. Br. 14.1 We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
January 15, 2015 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Advisory Action mailed May 1,
2015 (“Adv. Act.”); (3) the Appeal Brief filed July 10, 2015 (“App. Br.”);
(4) the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 16, 2015 (“Ans.”); and (5) the
Reply Brief filed January 7, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-002759
Application 13/529,182
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1—10, 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2
as unpatentable over Kirkpatrick3 (US 2013/0036388 Al; published Feb. 7,
2013) and Kim (US 2008/0163119 Al; published July 3, 2008) (“Kim
‘119”). Final Act. 4—9.
Claims 11—13, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kirkpatrick, Kim ‘119, and Kim
(US 2007/0260981 Al; published Nov. 8, 2007) (“Kim ‘981”).
Final Act. 9—11.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kirkpatrick, Kim ‘119, and Brodersen (US 2008/0165202 Al;
published July 10, 2008). Final Act. 11.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We review the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
2 For the purpose of this appeal, we treat claim 1—10, 14, 17, and 18 as
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, not § 102(e), as erroneously stated in the
Final Rejection. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner subsequently explained
(Adv. Act.) that the Final Rejection’s heading contained a typographical
error.
3 Both the Examiner and Appellants refer to the inventor named in the
2013/0036388 publication as “Kilpatrick.” See, e.g., Final Act. 3—11;
App. Br. 10—14; Ans. 2-4; Reply Br. 1—2. But inventor’s name is spelled
“Kirkpatrick.” In this opinion, we use the correct spelling of this inventor’s
name.
2
Appeal 2016-002759
Application 13/529,182
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention controls a position indicator—e.g., a cursor,
caret, or pointer—on a touch-sensitive display. Spec. H 10, 25. To control
the position indicator, the invention detects gestures on an “indicator
controller.” Id. H 20, 34. In one embodiment, the indicator controller is
shown on the display as a graphical circle centered on the position indicator.
Id. 138, Fig. 4. The indicator controller is divided into areas associated with
directions. Id. 148. When the user taps one of these areas, the position
indicator is moved in the direction associated with the area. Id.; id., Figs. 5—
6.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
displaying information including a plurality of characters
on a touch-sensitive display of an electronic device;
detecting an indicator control mode input;
in response to detecting the indicator control mode input,
displaying an indicator controller associated with a position
indicator, the indicator controller having a first area associated
with a first direction and a second area associated with a second
direction;
in response to detecting a tap at a location associated with
the first area, moving the position indicator, by a single
character of the plurality of characters, in the first direction; and
in response to detecting a tap associated with the second
area, moving the position indicator, by a single character of the
plurality of characters, in the second direction;
in response to detecting a touch and drag gesture
originating at a location associated with the indicator controller,
moving the indicator controller in a direction based on the
direction of the drag gesture on the touch-sensitive display.
3
Appeal 2016-002759
Application 13/529,182
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KIRKPATRICK AND
KIM ‘119
Contentions
The Examiner finds that Kirkpatrick discloses every recited element
of claim 1 except for responding to a touch and drag gesture. Final Act. 5—6.
In concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious, the Examiner cites
Kim ‘ 119 as teaching this feature. Id.
According to the Examiner, Kirkpatrick detects a tap at a location,
which moves the position indicator. Kirkpatrick || 14—15, 22—28, cited in
Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that Kirkpatrick’s tap is a gesture that
moves a cursor. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. Moreover, the Examiner finds that
Kirkpatrick’s graphical key 18 corresponds to the recited indicator
controller. Ans. 2. In the Examiner’s view, graphical key 18’s left and right
sides correspond to the recited areas of the indicator controller. Id.
Appellants contend that Kirkpatrick does not use a tap to move the
graphical selector, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 1—2.4
According to Appellants, Kirkpatrick uses a directional gesture—e.g., a fling
or swipe—to move the graphical selector. App. Br. 11—12. But in
Appellants’ view, the recited tap is a directionless touch contact of short
duration. Id. at 12; Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that Kirkpatrick’s taps are
only used to activate and deactivate the graphical selector. Reply Br. 2.
Appellants further argue that Kirkpatrick lacks a first and second area
associated with a first and second direction. App. Br. 10. In Appellants’
view, Kirkpatrick refers to the graphical key as a “single” key, which does
4 Although Appellants’ Reply Brief is not paginated, we refer to page
numbers in the Reply Brief in the order that its pages appear in the record.
4
Appeal 2016-002759
Application 13/529,182
not have areas associated with different directions. Id. (citing
Kirkpatrick 114).
Appellants further argue that Kim ‘119 fails to remedy Kirkpatrick’s
deficiencies because Kim ‘119 uses drag-and-drop gestures to move items.
App. Br. 13.
Issues
I. Has the Examiner established by a preponderance of the evidence
that Kirkpatrick moves a cursor in response to a tap, as recited in claim 1?
II. Has the Examiner established by a preponderance of the evidence
that Kirkpatrick’s indicator controller has a first area associated with a first
direction and a second area associated with a second direction, as recited in
claim 1?
Analysis
I.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection appears to be based, in part, on
the following rationales: a “tap” must be defined narrowly to be limited to a
directionless touch of short duration. Kirkpatrick expressly discloses gesture
inputs. Ans. 3. A “tap” is a species of the genus, “gesture input.” Id. As
such, Kirkpatrick teaches “taps,” in particular, by virtue of teaching gesture
inputs, more generally. Id.
We question the soundness of this collective reasoning. However, we
need not decide the appeal based upon this specific claim construction
because we are unconvinced that the claim term “tap” must be interpreted so
narrowly. For the reasons that follow, we instead find that a “tap” can be
interpreted more broadly to also include directional touches of short
duration.
5
Appeal 2016-002759
Application 13/529,182
Appellants’ touch-sensitive display 118 detects a number of attributes
for touch contacts or events. Spec. 119. These attributes are used to
distinguish between gestures. Id. 120. The Specification defines a “tap” as
“a touch of short duration or duration less than a threshold value.” Id. 129.
By contrast, “[a] touch and drag may be a touch that exceeds the threshold
time for a tap.” Id. 133.
As noted above, Kirkpatrick uses gestures—e.g., a swipe motion—to
move the cursor. Kirkpatrick 115, cited in Final Act. 5. The movement of
Kirkpatrick’s cursor is proportional to the gesture’s length.
Kirkpatrick 115. If the gesture’s length exceeds a threshold value, the
cursor is moved by an entire word. Id. But if the gesture’s length is less
than a threshold, the cursor moves a single character. Id. Additionally,
Kirkpatrick discusses an embodiment where the magnitude of the cursor
movement is based on the duration the user presses a graphical key.
Kirkpatrick 115, cited in Final Act. 5.
On this record, we agree with the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that
Kirkpatrick’s discloses gestures that include “taps.” Final Act. 5 (citing
Kirkpatrick 115). Kirkpatrick measures duration by length.
Kirkpatrick 115. By Appellants’ definition (Spec. 139), Kirkpatrick’s
gesture that moves a cursor a single character is of a duration less than a
threshold value—i.e., a tap. Kirkpatrick 115.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that a tap must be
directionless. App. Br. 12. Appellants do not cite, and we do not find, any
definition for the term “tap” that imposes this requirement. See id.;
Reply Br. 2. On the contrary, the Specification distinguishes a touch-and-
drag gesture from a tap only by “threshold time” alone. See Spec. 133.
6
Appeal 2016-002759
Application 13/529,182
That is, a directional gesture having a duration below a threshold, like
Kirkpatrick’s, satisfies the Appellants’ definition of a tap. See id. 1133,39.
Because Kirkpatrick’s gestures satisfy this definition and move a
cursor (Kirkpatrick 115), we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Kirkpatrick moves a cursor in response to a tap, as recited in
claim 1. See Final Act. 5—6.
II.
We are also unpersuaded that Kirkpatrick lacks an indicator controller
that has a first area associated with a first direction and a second area
associated with a second direction.
The Examiner finds that Kirkpatrick’s graphical key 18 corresponds
to the recited indicator control. Ans. 2. In particular, Kirkpatrick’s user
activates the graphical key to move graphical selector 24. Kirkpatrick 123,
cited in Final Act. 5. For example, graphical selector 24 can be a text cursor.
Kirkpatrick 122. The user performs a gesture originating from graphical
key 18 to move the cursor. Id. 123. The length of this movement is
determined by the distance between the gesture’s beginning and end.
Id. 147. Fikewise, the gesture’s direction determines the resulting direction
of the cursor movement. Id. 115.
On this record, we agree with the Examiner that Kirkpatrick’s
graphical key 18 possesses the claimed recited areas. Ans. 2. Specifically,
when the user gestures over graphical key 18, the gesture’s footprint defines
the area associated with a direction. In Kirkpatrick’s example, the user
begins a gesture originating at the graphical key. Kirkpatrick 123. The
gesture may extend beyond the limits of the key’s boundaries. In this case,
7
Appeal 2016-002759
Application 13/529,182
the cursor is moved in the direction of the gesture (see id. 115), and the
gesture’s beginning and end within graphical key 18 defines the area
associated with this direction.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Kirkpatrick is
distinguishable from the claimed invention on the basis that graphical key 18
is a single key. App. Br. 10 (citing Kirkpatrick 114). Notably, the
Specification describes that the indicator controller’s areas may be divided
visibly, for example by displaying lines or other delimiters. Spec. 127.
However, in another embodiment, the area need only be “associated with
different directions,” but area delimiters are not visible. Id. So to the extent
that Appellants argue that Kirkpatrick’s graphical key 18 is not visibly
divided (see App. Br. 10), we are unpersuaded because neither the
Specification nor the claims require such visible division of the recited
indicator controller. And for the above-discussed reasons, we are likewise
unpersuaded that Kirkpatrick’s graphical key 18 lacks non-visible areas.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
that Kirkpatrick’s indicator controller has a first area associated with a first
direction and a second area associated with a second direction, as recited in
claim 1. See Am,. 2.
Because Kim ‘119 was not cited to teach either limitation at issue (see
Final Act. 5—6), Appellants’ arguments against this reference (App. Br. 13)
are unpersuasive.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of that claim as well as independent claims 17 and
18 and dependent claims 2—10 and 14 not argued separately (see id. at 14).
8
Appeal 2016-002759
Application 13/529,182
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims
11—13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 over Kirkpatrick and Kim ‘119, and one of the
additional references of Kim ‘981 and Brodersen. See Final Act. 9—11.
Appellants have not pointed out particular errors in the Examiner’s
reasoning, but merely reiterate the same arguments about independent
claims 1 and 18. See App. Br. 14. But we are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed previously.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9