Ex Parte Moulios et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

12008131 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/008,131 01/08/2008
73576 7590
APPLE INC - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
06/22/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chris Moulios
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.
P5601US1/ APPL:0393 8524
EXAMINER
LEIBY, CHRISTOPHER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRIS MOULIOS, GERHARD LENGELING, and
MARKUS FRITZE
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge JEREMY J.
CUR CURI.
Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge BRADLEY W.
BAUMEISTER.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-25. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Natoli (US 2002/0130844 Al; Sept. 19, 2002) and Eastty (US 6,281,885 Bl;
Aug. 28, 2001 ). Ans. 3-16.
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
We atlirm. We denominate the affirmance as a new ground of
rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "providing media outputs in response
to receiving inputs from an input device." Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for mapping an input mechanism of an input
device to a media application parameter, comprising:
receiving a user selection of a first input mechanism;
receiving a user selection of a screen object displayed on
a user's screen;
in response to receiving the user selections of the first
input mechanism and of the screen object, assigning the selected
first input mechanism to the selected screen object;
receiving a user selection of the media application
parameter, wherein the media application parameter is associated
with a media output control of a channel strip; and
in response to receiving the user selection of the media
application parameter, mapping the selected screen object
displayed on the user's screen to the selected media application
parameter, wherein the mapping between the selected screen
object and the selected media application parameter is
maintained when the first input mechanism is replaced by a
second input mechanism assigned to the selected screen object.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-9 and 11-24
The Examiner finds that the combination of Natoli and Eastty teaches
all limitations of claim 1. Ans. 3-5.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
2
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
1.
Natoli and Eastty, alone or in hypothetical combination, do not
teach or suggest the claimed relationship---input mechanism
assigned to a screen object; the screen object mapped to a media
application parameter-as required by all of the independent
claims. At best, the cited references merely teach relating a
physical input device (e.g., a "VR [(virtual reality)] glove")
directly to a control signal (e.g., a keyboard letter) while a virtual
keyboard (e.g., a "VR keyboard") appears onscreen. Nowhere
do Natoli and/or Eastty teach or suggest mapping a screen object
to a media application parameter, as claimed.
Supp. Br. 12.
Natoli specifically describes the physical VR glove as mapping
directly to specific control signals, which the Examiner has
presumably analogized to the claimed media application
parameter. Indeed, Natoli appears to teach generating a mapping
of physical VR glove positions when physical keys are depressed
by the user on the physical actual keyboard to corresponding
control signals. See Natoli, FIG. 32, i-fi-f 115-117.
Supp. Br. 13.
As seen in FIG. 34 of Natoli, the positions of the physical VR
glove are directly mapped to the ultimate control signals
associated with pressing a keyboard key. These direct mappings
between VR glove of Natoli and the control signals are not
intermediated by any screen objects. Indeed, the virtual VR
keyboard of Natoli appears at best to simply appear to the user to
serve as a guide for the VR glove (from which the control signals
used by the system of Natoli actually derive). As such, the input
device of Natoli (the VR glove) is directly mapped to the control
signals, not the VR keyboard.
Supp. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 3--4.
11. "[T]he actual keyboard of Natoli and the VR keyboard of Natoli
cannot simultaneously represent an input mechanism and a screen object
and a screen object and a media application parameter[.]" Supp. Br. 15.
3
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
111.
Natoli never appears to teach any selective mapping of a screen
object to a media application parameter-nowhere does Natoli
even suggest that the on screen VR keyboard of Natoli could be
changed based on the actual keyboard. At best, the relationship
between the actual keyboard of Natoli and the onscreen VR
keyboard of Natoli appears to be "predetermined."
Supp. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
1v. Natoli and Eastty cannot be properly combined because "[i]f
the virtual VR keyboard were replaced by the virtual channel strip of Eastty,
programming the VR glove would presumably require an actual channel
strip, as well." Supp. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 6-7.
We agree with the Examiner that Natoli and Eastty teach all
limitations of claim 1, and we agree with the Examiner's legal conclusion of
obviousness. Because we denominate the affirmance as a new ground of
rejection, in order to clarify the record, below we make findings for the
subject matter recited in the first three elements of claim 1; and we clarify
various findings when addressing Appellants' arguments.
We find Natoli's user selecting a physical keyboard teaches the
recited (claim 1) "receiving a user selection of a first input mechanism." We
find Natoli' s user selecting a VR keyboard teaches the recited (claim 1)
"receiving a user selection of a screen object displayed on a user's screen."
In Natoli, the user's selections of the physical keyboard and VR keyboard
occur at the same time because the VR keyboard has an appearance that
matches the appearance of the physical keyboard. We find using Natoli's
physical keyboard to map Natoli's VR keyboard to key codes, as further
explained below, discloses the recited (claim 1) "in response to receiving the
user selections of the first input mechanism and of the screen object,
4
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
assigning the selected first input mechanism to the selected screen object."
See Natoli Abstract, i-fi-f 115-116, 118.
Regarding Appellants' argument i, we construe "assign" with its plain
meaning, which in the pertinent sense is: "3: to fix or specify in
correspondence or relationship." MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY 69 (10th ed. 1997). Natoli (i-f 115) discloses "the actual
keyboard may be used to generate the predetermined mapping to be used by
the VR keyboard." Natoli (i-f 116) discloses "As the user enters every key
combination on the physical keyboard while wearing the activated VR
glove, the VR keyboard system and method get VR glove positions
corresponding to the physical keys being depressed by the user." Natoli
(Abstract) discloses "The display of the key input may include, but is [not]
limited to, a displayed depressed key in a VR headset of a VR representation
of a VR keyboard indicating the key input."
Thus, we find the physical keyboard is assigned to the VR keyboard
because the physical keyboard is specified in relationship to the VR
keyboard for training purposes in order to generate the VR keyboard's
mapping. We further find that this assignment is in response to receiving
user selections of the physical keyboard and the VR keyboard because to the
extent that there is a preexisting relationship between the physical keyboard
and the VR keyboard, such a preexisting relationship is a primary
assignment of the physical keyboard to the VR keyboard, and does not
preclude the use of the physical keyboard by the user for training purposes to
generate the VR keyboard's mapping from being a secondary assignment of
the physical keyboard to the VR keyboard. We note that Natoli's physical
and VR keyboards may take various forms (see Natoli Figs. 10-17, 30), and
5
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
the secondary assignment takes place when a particular physical keyboard
and VR keyboard are used for training purposes. Further, as a result of the
training, the VR keyboard is mapped to the keyboard control signals
(parameters) corresponding to keyboard keys.
Regarding Appellants' position (see Supp. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 3--4)
that the VR glove positions are mapped directly to the keyboard control
signals with the VR keyboard serving as a guide, to the extent that the VR
glove positions are mapped to keyboard control signals, the VR glove
positions are also mapped to the VR keyboard (see Natoli Abstract ("The
display of the key input may include, but is [not] limited to, a displayed
depressed key in a VR headset of a VR representation of a VR keyboard
indicating the key input")); thus, the VR keyboard is thereby also mapped to
the keyboard control signals.
Regarding Appellants' argument ii, we find Natoli's physical
keyboard discloses the recited (claim 1) "first input mechanism"; Natoli's
VR keyboard discloses the recited (claim 1) "screen object"; and Natoli's
keyboard control signals disclose the recited (claim 1) "media application
parameter." See Ans. 4--5.
Regarding Appellants' argument iii, first, the (claim 1) "mapping the
selected screen object displayed on the user's screen to the selected media
application parameter" is met by mapping Natoli's VR keyboard to key
codes. See Ans. 4--5. Second, to the extent the association between Natoli's
physical keyboard and VR keyboard is predetermined, this does not preclude
the Examiner's findings. That is, to the extent the association may be
predetermined, the mapping is realized when the actual keyboard is used to
6
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
generate the key codes for the YR keyboard, and this reasonably is described
as the recited "mapping" of claim 1. See Natoli i-f 115.
Regarding argument iv, we agree with and adopt as our own the
Examiner's reasoning: "It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
at the time the invention was made to enable Natoli to further map channel
strips as disclosed by Eastty in order to adjust the audio of the virtual
instruments disclosed by Natoli." Ans. 5 (citing Eastty Abstract, Figs. 6A
and 6B; Natoli Fig. 8). Further, contrary to Appellants' argument,
programming the VR glove would not presumably require an actual channel
strip. See Natoli i-fi-197-99 (programming without an actual keyboard).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2-9 and 11-25, which are not separately argued with particularity.
We designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection.
Claim 10
The Examiner finds Natoli and Eastty teach all limitations of claim
10. Ans. 9.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
When the user chooses not to use the actual keyboard but instead
use the VR glove, the onscreen virtual VR keyboard of Natoli
appears to remains the same. That is, the onscreen VR keyboard
of Natoli does not change when the physical VR glove of Natoli
is used in lieu of the actual keyboard. Eastty does not ameliorate
the deficiencies of Natoli.
Supp. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 5 ("Natoli is completely silent regarding
changing the appearance of a VR keyboard or mouse to match an input from
any actual keyboard connected as an input mechanism").
7
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
We agree with the Examiner that Natoli and Eastty teach all
limitations of claim 10.
The Examiner finds Natoli's displaying a depressed key of a VR
keyboard indicating a key input on the actual keyboard discloses the recited
(claim 10) "change the appearance of the screen object to which the third
input mechanism is assigned to match the received input." Ans. 9 (citing
Natoli Abstract, i-fi-176-78, 115-116, 125-128); see also Ans. 21 (citing
Natoli i-fi-188, 125-128, Figs. 8 and 17) ("The prior art discloses alternative
layouts/change of the appearance of the screen object and a plurality of input
devices wherein this is deemed to disclose the claimed subject matter since a
screen object of the plurality of screen objects may be selected/matched for
any of the plurality of input devices"). We agree with the Examiner's finding
that Natoli teaches the subject matter recited in claim 10.
Regarding Appellants' argument, this argument does not show any
error in the Examiner's findings. Natoli (i-f 125) discloses: "a VR keyboard
and VR mouse for use with an actual keyboard and actual mouse." Natoli
(Fig. 40) depicts the VR keyboard, VR mouse, actual keyboard, and actual
mouse. Natoli (Fig. 30) depicts a VR keyboard and an actual keyboard,
omitting the mouse. Taken together, these embodiments of Natoli disclose
changing the appearance of the screen object (to add the VR mouse) to
which the third input mechanism (the actual mouse) is assigned to match the
received input.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10. We
designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection.
8
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25 is affirmed. 1
We denominate the affirmance as involving a new ground of rejection
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), for all claims, to give Appellants a fair
opportunity to respond to the thrust of the rejection as explained in this
decision.
Rule 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) states that "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
Furthermore, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner; in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the
exammer ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
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
37 CPR§ 41.50(b)
1 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to review the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For
example, the Examiner should consider whether the method of claim 1 could
be performed, in its entirety, mentally. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (2011).
9
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRIS MOULIOS, GERHARD LENGELING, and
MARKUS FRITZE
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
Technology Center 2600
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
I agree generally with how the Majority interprets the claim
limitations as corresponding to the cited prior art references. I also agree
with the Majority designating the affirmance as a new ground of rejection. I
write separately because I partially disagree with how the Majority
interpreted the claim language "assigning the selected first input mechanism
to the selected screen object" as corresponding to Natoli.
Specifically, I agree with the Majority that Natoli's physical
keyboards and VR keyboards may take various forms (Maj. Opinion 5) and
that claim 1 's first two steps of receiving a user selection of a first input
mechanism and a screen object read on the user selecting a particular
physical keyboard and a VR keyboard (Maj. Opinion 4). In my opinion,
though, the recited "assigning the selected first input mechanism to the
selected screen object" also corresponds to the user selecting, and thereby
associating, these two keyboards-the acts that the Majority calls the
"primary assignment." See Maj. Opinion 5.
10
Appeal2013-009477
Application 12/008, 131
l disagree with the Majority (Maj. Opinion 5) that Natoli's disclosure
of subsequently using these two keyboards for training purposes reasonably
can be interpreted as constituting some sort of "secondary assignment of the
physical keyboard to the VR keyboard." As noted by Appellants, "[i]n
Natoli, a user may program the physical VR glove to simulate typing on an
onscreen virtual VR keyboard by typing on an actual keyboard." Supp.
Br. 12 (citing Natoli, FIGS. 30, 37; i-fi-f 119-120). That is, any "assigning"
that occurs during Natoli's training process is more accurately described as
an assigning of the VR glove to the VR keyboard-not an assigning of the
physical keyboard to the VR keyboard. All assigning between the two
keyboards would have already taken place before Natoli's training procedure
commences.
Not only is it unreasonable to interpret Natoli's training procedure as
constituting a secondary assigning of the physical keyboard to the VR
keyboard, it is also unnecessary. Natoli's disclosure of the so-called
"primary assigning," itself, is sufficient to satisfy the "assigning" language
of claim 1. For these reasons, I CONCUR.
11