Ex Parte Mock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13328033 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
13/328,033 12/16/2011 Wayne E. Mock 5896-20500 7933
35690 7590 03/01/2017
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
KIM, SANG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg @ gmail .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE E. MOCK and PATRICK R. McKINNON
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,0331
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 18, and 20-
23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to camera control using a touch
interface. Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of subject matter of the appeal
and is reproduced below.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LifeSize
Communications, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,033
1. A method for controlling a camera, the method
comprising:
presenting a first input control and a second input control on a
touch display, wherein the first input control and the second
input control are presented as distinct controls on the touch
display that are separated from one another, wherein the first
input control is configured to control pan and tilt of the camera,
wherein the second input control is configured to control zoom
of the camera, wherein each of the first input control and the
second input control comprise a first region for activating the
respective control, wherein, after activation of the first input
control, the first input control comprises four second regions for
panning left and right and tilting up and down, wherein, after
activation of the second input control, the second input control
comprises two second regions for zooming in and zooming out,
wherein the first input control and the second input control are
independently activated, and wherein prior to activation, the
second regions of the first and second input controls are not
displayed or usable by the user;
receiving first user input to the touch display to the first
region of one of the first input control or the second input
control;
activating the four second regions for panning left and
right and tilting up and down when the user input is to the first
input control or the two second regions for zooming in and out
when the user input is to the second input control;
after activating the second regions, receiving second user
input to the touch display to a second region of the one of the
first input control or the second input control, wherein the
second user input is received to adjust the pan and tilt or zoom
of the camera, depending on which of the first input control or
the second input control is selected;
adjusting the pan and tilt or the zoom of the camera in
response to the second user input, depending on which of the
first input control or the second input control is selected.
2
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,033
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10-12, 15, 18, and
20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination
of Saleh et al. (US 2011/0234746 Al; published Sept. 29, 2011) (hereinafter
“Saleh”) and Poland (US 2009/0043195 Al; published Feb. 12, 2009).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 13, 16, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Saleh, Poland, and
Kristiansen et al. (US 2011/0085016 Al; published Apr. 14, 2011)
(hereinafter “Kristiansen”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the July 13, 2015 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—25)
and (2) the May 4, 2016 Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—9). We highlight and
address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) First and second input controls
Appellants argue the combination of Saleh and Poland fails to teach or
suggest presenting first and second input controls on a touch display, where
the controls (i) are distinct and separated from one another on the display,
(ii) each comprises a first region for separately activating the control, and
2 The Examiner clarified that claim 23 stands rejected under the combination
of Saleh, Poland, and Kristiansen, and was mistakenly listed under another
rejection in the Final Office Action. Ans. 8—9.
3
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,033
(iii) are configured as the first input control for controlling a camera’s pan
and tilt and the second input control for controlling the camera’s zoom, in
accordance with claim 1. App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 3—5. Appellants argue
Saleh instead teaches having a single input control (i.e., the camera button
312) instead of two different input controls — one for pan/tilt and a second
for zoom — and thus, also fails to teach separately activating the controls
and separating the functionality between the two controls. See App. Br. 9
(citing Saleh Fig. 6); Reply Br. 4.
Appellants argue Saleh additionally fails to teach after activation (i) of
the first input control, having four associated second regions for panning left
and right and tilting up and down, and (ii) of the second input control,
having two associated second regions for zooming in and zooming out, as
well as prior to activation, having the second regions not displayed or usable
by the user. App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 4. Appellants contend Saleh instead
teaches having the six options (i.e., “all of the pan/tilt/zoom options”)
displayed for activation simultaneously upon activating the single control
input (i.e., the camera button 312). App. Br. 9 (citing Saleh Figs. 7, 13 A;
1180,115).
As to Poland, Appellants argue it merely teaches “the general notion
of activation regions on a touch screen.” App. Br. 9 (citing Poland H 47—
53). Appellants argue Poland, or in combination with Saleh, fails to teach or
suggest the claimed “very specific type of interface.” App. Br. 9-10; see
also Reply Br. 4 (citing Poland H 38, 41; Fig. 2) (arguing Poland’s
activation areas correspond to different functions (e.g., gain control) than the
claimed pan, tilt, or zoom).
4
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,033
The Examiner finds the combination of Saleh and Poland teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations. See Ans. 3^4; Final Act. 5—9. As to
Saleh, the Examiner finds it “teaches a touch panel-based controller for a
videoconferencing system that explicitly describes a user interface with four
different regions to control panning and tilting functions of the camera and
two different regions to control zooming functions of the camera.” Ans. 3
(citing Saleh Figs. 7, 13A; || 80, 115).
As to Poland, the Examiner finds it teaches or suggests “user
interfaces [which] include individual activation areas, 22, 24 and 26 that are
separately displayed, distinctly controlled and independently activatable.”
Id. at 3^4 (citing Poland 1 6, Fig. 2, Abstract). The Examiner finds Poland
also teaches “after activation of the input control, an additional region of
input controls are displayed which were not visible or usable by the user
prior to activation.” Id. at 4 (citing Poland 147); see also id. (citing Poland
134 (finding Poland teaches the “user interfaces can be adjusted to satisfy
the needs of various functions of device controls and [are] programmable
and configurable”)). The Examiner concludes one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood Poland to teach, or at least suggest, that “user
interface [s] can be modified to support the number of regions - whether four
or two regions - and the function associated with each region - whether
panning, tilting or zooming function - can be programmed to perform a
specified function.” Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
For example, we agree Saleh teaches a touchscreen having a user interface
with an input control (i.e., camera button 312) for activating camera controls
of six different regions (four different regions to control panning and tilting
5
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,033
functions of the camera and two different regions to control zooming
functions of the camera). Saleh Figs. 7, 13 A; H 80, 115. Furthermore, we
agree Poland teaches, or at least suggests, (i) multiple touchscreen input
controls that are separately activatable (e.g., 22, 24, 26); (ii) additional
activatable regions which were not visible or usable by a user prior to
activation of an input control; and (iii) customizable user interfaces that can
be adjusted to satisfy the needs of various functions. See Poland Fig. 2, || 6,
34, 37, Abstract. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious in light of the combined teachings of Saleh and Poland to present on
a touchscreen input controls (e.g., a first and second input controls),
including nested input controls (e.g., the specific pan, tilt, and zoom options)
that are not displayed before activation of a parent input control in
accordance with the claim language. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,
826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the
art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”). We find Appellants’
arguments (e.g., App. Br. 10) that the combination fails to teach the specific
arrangement of the claimed controls and regions unpersuasive. KSR, 550
U.S. at 417 (“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”); see also In re Rice, 341 F.2d
309, 314 (CCPA 1965) (finding minor differences between the prior art and
6
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,033
a claimed device may be a matter of design choice absent evidence to the
contrary).
(2) Combining Saleh and Poland
Appellants argue the Examiner fails to provide sufficient reasoning to
combine Saleh and Poland’s teachings, including arguing the Examiner
relies on improper hindsight and the claims as a roadmap. App. Br. 10—11;
Reply Br. 5—6. Appellants also argue “the proposed combination is for a UI
for controlling a camera, not for an ultrasound imaging system.” Id. at 10.
Appellants also argue the Examiner provides no specific reasoning and
instead merely asserts because “both references provide a touchscreen, one
of skill in the art would make modifications ‘to better control image
capturing devices such as a camera and a probe using a touchscreen input
device.’” Id. at 11. Appellants further contend the Examiner “is clearly
stretching the definition of an ‘imaging system.’” Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner finds the teachings of Saleh and Poland are properly
combined. See Final Act. 9; Ans. 4—6. The Examiner finds both “Saleh and
Poland describe a motivation to improve a touch screen based user interface
of an image control device.” Ans. 5. As to Saleh, the Examiner finds it
teaches “overcom[ing] problems with complex user interfaces of video
conferencing systems that include the inherent complexity, in that users who
may not be familiar with all of the features or settings may find it difficult to
find the particular features or settings they need.” Id. (citing Saleh | 6). As
to Poland, the Examiner finds its teachings are not limited to ultrasound
imaging systems, and rather teaches or suggests providing a user interface
“in which control functions are represented by activation areas on a
touchscreen with an optimal presentation, namely, to facilitate the user’s
7
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,033
ability to easily select each activation area.” Ans. 4—5 (citing Poland H 10—
11, 63—65). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to modify Saleh’s invention to include the user
interface for imaging systems taught by Poland to represent control
functions by activation areas on a touchscreen with an optimal presentation
and to facilitate the user’s ability to easily select each activation area and/or
to display activation areas.” Ans. 5—6.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner provides
“articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
For example, the Examiner reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine Saleh and Poland to improve touch
screens based user interfaces, including to provide “an optimal presentation
and to facilitate the user’s ability to easily select each activation area and/or
to display activation areas.” See Ans. 5—6; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417
(“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.”). Further, Appellants’ argument —
which we also find to be conclusory — that the Examiner uses
impermissible hindsight largely is premised on a lack of articulated
reasoning to combine the references, and thus, we also find this argument
unpersuasive.
(3) Continuous manner
Appellants argue the combination of Saleh, Poland, and Kristiansen
fails to teach or suggest “wherein the first user input and the second user
8
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,033
input are received in a continuous manner,” as recited in claims 2, 13, and
16. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6—7. Appellants argue Kristiansen “provides an
entirely different manner of controlling a camera that is not related to the
activatable input controls of the claims.” Ans. 11. Kristiansen instead
teaches that “a user may provide gestures over a live video feed to
pan/tilt/zoom, e.g., by providing drag and drop gestures, pinch to zoom
gestures, etc.” Id. (citing Kristiansen | 51, Fig. 8); Reply Br. 6 (citing
Kristiansen || 49, 51). According to Appellants, “[tjhese well-known
gestures do not correspond to the continuous input recited in the claim,
where the first input activates multiple regions and the second input selects
one of those activated regions, performed in a continuous manner.” Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Saleh, Poland,
and Kristiansen teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 6—7.
As to Kristiansen, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it teaches “how
gestures are recognized as ‘a series of consecutive touch coordinates.’”
Ans. 6—7 (citing Kristiansen 149). We also agree with the Examiner that
Kristiansen teaches activating the zoom function in two step user inputs
“such that the first user contact onto the touchscreen is considered as the first
user input of a gesture . . ., and [the] user’s directional movement following
the first user touch [is] considered as the second user input, for which the
system determines a function such as ‘zoom in.’” Ans. 7 (citing Kristiansen
| 51 (finding the zoom function is activated by pressing and holding the
screen for a predetermined time period followed by sliding the finger in a
horizontal or vertical direction); Figs. 8a—8d). The Examiner concludes, and
we agree, Kristiansen’s teaching — “an initial touch and directional move
following the touch” — happen in a continuous manner in accordance with
9
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,033
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Ans. 7.
Additionally, we find Appellants’ argument that Kristiansen “provides an
entirely different manner of controlling a camera” unpersuasive. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (finding the relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in light of the art’s combined teachings).
(4) Deactivated
Appellants argue the combination of Saleh and Poland fails to teach or
suggest “wherein after providing the second user input, the second regions
of the one of the first input control or the second input control are
deactivated until the input to the first region is received,” as recited in
claim 3. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7. Appellants argue the Examiner cited
portion of Poland instead
relates to the time-out second region, which means that the
second regions are in fact still available after providing the user
input until the time-out occurs. Within that time period, in
contrast to the claims, it seems that the activated region is in
fact still activated without having to provide input to the first
region, unlike as recited in the claims.
App. Br. 12 (citing Poland 1 59); see also Reply Br. 7 (arguing Poland’s
activation area 22 is unrelated to, and entirely different than, the claimed
activatable inputs, and instead invoke a mode of operation allowing repeated
inputs and only being disabled after a period of disuse).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination, and Poland in
particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 8; Final Act.
9-10. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Poland teaches, or at least
suggests, deactivating a second region function (e.g., image rotation) after
the second user input is provided (e.g., dragging gesture performed), and re-
10
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,033
activating it when the first user input control (e.g., activation area 22) is
again touched. Ans. 8 (citing Poland 1 59). We agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the disputed
limitation obvious in light of the combined teachings of Saleh and Poland.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”).
(5) Second location
Appellants argue the combination of Saleh, Poland, and Kristiansen
fails to teach or suggest “wherein the first camera is comprised in a second
videoconferencing system at a second location, wherein said adjusting
comprises providing messages to the second videoconferencing system to
perform said adjusting,” as recited in claim 23. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7—8.
Appellants argue Kristiansen teaches merely “the generic notion of far-end
camera control,” rather than teaching or suggesting “suggest that the specific
input controls of the claims are used to control remote cameras.” Id. (citing
Kristiansen | 32).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Kristiansen teaches or suggests
far-end camera control, including “communication between two end points
using a specific signaling protocol to control a remote camera.” See Ans. 9
(quoting Kristiansen | 32 (“The commands may be sent from the controlling
video conference endpoint to the other video conference endpoint using a
signaling protocol message such as ITU-T H.281 or H.323 Annex Q.”)
(emphasis omitted)). The Examiner concludes, and we agree, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found the disputed limitation obvious in
11
Appeal 2016-006044
Application 13/328,033
light of the combined teachings of the cited art, as well as the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 9; KSR, 550 U.S.
at 419 (“The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by
overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents.”); id. at 418 (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need
not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”).
CONCLUSION
Based on our above findings, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejections of claims 1, 2, 3, 13, 16, and 23. We also sustain the Examiner’s
§103 rejection of the remaining claims on appeal, for which Appellants did
not provide separate arguments for patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 8, 10-13,
15, 16, 18, and 20-23.
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
12