Ex Parte Levin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201311156172 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/156,172 06/17/2005 Burton Lee Levin SLA1601 5687 7590 08/30/2013 Gerald W. Maliszewski P.O. Box 270829 San Diego, CA 92198-2829 EXAMINER WALTHALL, ALLISON N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2013 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 BURTON LEE LEVIN and CHARLES EDWARD PIERSON ____________ Appeal 2011-003359 Application 11/156,172 1 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Sharp Laboratories of America. Appeal 2011-003359 Application 11/156,172 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 4-14, and 17-29, which are all the claims remaining in the application. Claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The present invention relates generally to a system for translating display screens icons into an audible signal and manipulating the icons. See Spec. 1:6-7. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. In a screen display interpreter device, a method for audibly interpreting a computing device screen display, the method comprising: locating a display interpreter (DI) with a tactile matrix of sensors overlying a display touchscreen of a computing device with visible touchscreen icons, wherein the DI is electrically independent of the computing device and display touchscreen; in response to sensing a proximate pointer, the display interpreter accepting a tactile matrix region selection; the display interpreter mapping a touchscreen icon to the selected tactile matrix region; the display interpreter audibly identifying the mapped touchscreen icon; engaging the computing device touchscreen icon; and, the display interpreter acknowledging the computing device touchscreen icon engagement. Appeal 2011-003359 Application 11/156,172 3 Appellants appeal the following rejections: R1. Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17-19, 22, 23, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blume (US Patent Pub. 2004/0021648 A1, Feb. 5, 2004) and Gupta (US 6,459,364 B2, Oct. 1, 2002); R2. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blume, Gupta, and Crandall (US Patent Pub. 2004/0090428 A1, May 13, 2004); and R3. Claims 11, 12, 20, 21, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blume, Gupta, Crandall, and Shetye (US 5,444, 192, Aug. 22, 1995). ANALYSIS Our representative claim, claim 1, recites, inter alia, “wherein the DI is electrically independent of the computing device and display touchscreen.” Independent claim 14 recites a commensurate limitation. Thus, the scope of each of the claims includes electrical independence between devices. Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Blume and Gupta teaches and/or suggests the display interpreter is electrically independent of the computing device and display touchscreen? Appellants contend that neither Blume nor Gupta “discloses a display interpreter that is electrically independent of an underlying touchscreen display” (App. Br. 9). Appellants further contend that “Blume teaches a Appeal 2011-003359 Application 11/156,172 4 single electrical device which overlies a (non-electrical) book” (Reply Br. 2). The Examiner found that “[a]although the device of Gupta does not provide two electrically independent devices, Blume already teaches two electrically independent devices” (Ans. 15). We disagree with the Examiner. In essence, the Examiner admits that Gupta does not explicitly disclose two electrically independent devices, but instead relies upon Blume to disclose such features. As such, we shall look for error in the Examiner’s interpretation of Blume. We find, as highlighted by Appellants, that Blume merely discloses one electrical device overlying a conventional (non-electrical) book. Specifically, in Blume “[t]he guide sheet is configured to be placed over or under and aligned with a selected page [of a book]” (Abstract). However, the claims require the DI be electrically independent of another electrical device, i.e., the computing device and display touchscreen. No such configuration is shown in either cited reference. Given that the Examiner has not shown that either Blume or Gupta discloses the above-noted claimed configuration (or that Crandall and/or Shetye makes up for the deficiencies of Blume), we are therefore constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and claims 4-14 and 17-29 for similar reasons. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. It follows that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of cited art renders claims 1, 4-14, and 17-29 patentable. Appeal 2011-003359 Application 11/156,172 5 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. REVERSED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation