Ex Parte Matthews et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 29, 201813692154 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/692, 154 12/03/2012 909 7590 08/31/2018 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP PO Box 10500 McLean, VA 22102 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Joshua Scott Matthews 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. 023523-0410153 2487 EXAMINER CASAREZ, BENJAMIN X. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2018 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): docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSHUA SCOTT MATTHEWS, DAVID MICHAEL TEITELBAUM, and BENJAMIN KOU-AN TSENG 1 Appeal2018-000465 Application 13/692,154 Technology Center 2600 Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-36 and 40-46. Claims 37-39 have been canceled. Final Act. 1-2; Appeal Br. 2. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1 Appellants identify Apkudo, LLC., as the real party in interest. 2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Dec. 3, 2012; Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Apr. 21, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Oct. 17, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed Sept. 22, 2016; and Answer ("Ans.") mailed Aug. 17, 2017. Appeal2018-000465 Application 13/692,154 We reverse. Appellants' Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns systems and methods of measuring latency related to touch screen response for touch screen devices. The latency measurement process utilizes a camera to generate a video of an interaction with a touch screen of a device, including a first contact between a member and the touch screen, and a response of the touch screen to the first contact. The process monitors frame change rates of the touch screen based on the video, and determines a response end time of the touch screen response based on the monitored frame change rates of the touch screen. The process determines a latency of the touch screen response to the first contact based on the contact time of the first contact and the response end time. Spec. ,r,r 1, 5-12; Abstract. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method of measuring latency related to touch screen response, the method comprising: generating, by a camera, a video of an interaction with a touch screen of a device, wherein the interaction comprises at least (i) a first contact between a member and the touch screen and (ii) a response of the touch screen to the first contact; monitoring, by a processor, frame change rates of the touch screen based on the interaction video; determining, by the processor, a response end time of the touch screen response based on the monitored frame change rates of the touch screen; determining, by the processor, a contact time of the first contact based on the interaction video; and 2 Appeal2018-000465 Application 13/692,154 determining, by the processor, a latency of the touch screen response to the first contact based on the contact time and the response end time. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 7, 9-16, 19, 21-28, 31, 33- 36, 40, 43, 45, and 46 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Waring et al. (US 2013/0002862 Al, published Jan. 3, 2013 (filed June 30, 2011)) ("Waring") and Kuznetsov et al. (US 2015/0029107 Al, published Jan. 29, 2015 (filed Feb. 15, 2012)) ("Kuznetsov"). 2. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 17, 18, 29, and 30 under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Waring, Kuznetsov, and Uzelac et al. (US 2013/0197862 Al, published Aug. 1, 2013 (filed Jan. 31, 2012)) ("Uzelac"). 3. The Examiner rejects claims 8, 20, and 32 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Waring, Kuznetsov, and Border et al. (US 2010/0231738 Al, published Sept. 16, 2010) ("Border"). 4. The Examiner rejects claims 41 and 42 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Waring, Kuznetsov, and Williams et al. (US 2011/0310041 Al, published Dec. 22, 2011) ("Williams"). 5. The Examiner rejects claim 44 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Waring, Kuznetsov, and Marsyla et al. (US 2009/0203368 Al, published Aug. 13, 2009) ("Marsyla"). 3 Appeal2018-000465 Application 13/692,154 ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Waring and Kuznetsov would have taught or suggested: determining, by the processor, a response end time of the touch screen response based on the monitored frame change rates of the touch screen; determining, by the processor, a contact time of the first contact based on the interaction video; and determining, by the processor, a latency of the touch screen response to the first contact based on the contact time and the response end time ( claim 1 ), within the meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 13, and 25? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (and independent claims 13, and 25) as being obvious in view of Waring and Kuznetsov. See Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2-5. Appellants contend that Waring and Kuznetsov do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2- 6. Specifically, Appellants contend, inter alia, that Waring (at best) separately teaches determining a response time "between a user input/interaction with [ a touch screen] and the requested action being presented on the [ touch screen]," (Waring, i-fl6), and generating "smoothness reports" based on frame rate variability (Waring, ,I20) . ... [Also,] Waring fails to teach at least determining a latency of a touch screen response ( to a first contact between a member and the touch screen) based on both (i) a contact time of the first contact and (ii) a response end time of the touch screen response, much less ( 1) determining a response end time of a touch screen response to a first contact 4 Appeal2018-000465 Application 13/692,154 based on video monitored frame change rates of the touch screen; (2) determining a contact time of the first contact based on the interaction video; and (3) determining a latency of the touch screen response ( to the first contact) based on both the contact time and the response end time. (Appeal Br. 5; see Appeal Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2---6). Further, "Kuznetsov (at best) describes the determination of an average frame rate that occurs after the latency (between a gesture and the beginning of a response to the gesture) is determined." Appeal Br. 7 (citing Kuznetsov ,r,r 22-23); see Appeal Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 5---6. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner-cited portions of Waring and Kuznetsov do not clearly describe the disputed limitations of "determining ... a latency of the touch screen response ... based on the contact time and the response end time" as well as the "response end time .. . [being determined] based on the monitored frame change rates of the touch screen" ( claim 1, emphasis added), and that the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the cited portions of Waring and Kuznetsov teach or suggest these features. See Reply Br. 2---6. As pointed out by Appellants, (supra), Waring does not explicitly describe calculating a response end time or such a response end time based on "smoothness reports" (frame rate variability). Waring instead calculates a latency between an initial contact and the beginning of a touch screen response. See Waring ,r 20; Fig. 3B. As further pointed out by Appellants (supra), Kuznetsov, like Waring, describes calculates a latency between an initial contact and the beginning of a touch screen response. See Kuznetsov ,r 23; Fig. 3. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Waring and Kuznetsov renders obvious Appellants' claim 1. Independent claims 13 and 25 include 5 Appeal2018-000465 Application 13/692,154 limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2--4, 7, 9-12, 14--16, 19, 21-24, 26-28, 31, 33-36, 40, 43, 45, and 46 depend on and stand with claims 1, 13, and 25, respectively. The Examiner rejects dependent claims 5, 6, 17, 18, 29, and 30 as being obvious in view of Waring, Kuznetsov, and Uzelac. See Final Act. 15-18. The Examiner rejects dependent claims 8, 20, and 32 as being obvious in view of Waring, Kuznetsov, and Border. See Final Act. 18-19. The Examiner rejects dependent claims 41 and 42 as being obvious in view of Waring, Kuznetsov, and Williams. See Final Act. 19-21. And, the Examiner rejects dependent claim 44 as being obvious in view of Waring, Kuznetsov, and Marsyla. See Final Act. 21-23. The Examiner relies on the same reasoning as claim 1 (supra) for rejecting claims 5, 6, 8, 17, 18, 20, 29, 30, 32, 41, 42, and 44. See Final Act. 15-23. The Examiner does not suggest, and has not established on this record, that the additionally cited Uzelac, Border, Williams, and Marsyla references overcome the aforementioned deficiencies of Waring and Kuznetsov. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 17, 18, 20, 29, 30, 32, 41, 42, and 44. CONCLUSION Appellants have persuasively shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-36 and 40--46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-36 and 40--46. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation