Ex Parte Oliver et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13539230 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
13/539,230 06/29/2012 Hugues-Antoine Oliver IMM385 8668
99292 7590 04/04/2017
Medler Ferro Woodhouse & Mills PLLC
8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1060
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
GYAWALI, BIPIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
tmedler @ medlerferro .com
docketing @ medlerferro .com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUGUES-ANTOINE OLIVER and HERVE THU TIMONE
Appeal 2017-001822
Application 13/539,230
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, 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 decision rejecting claims 1—18, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Final Act. 1—2.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”), filed June 29, 2012,
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Mar. 10, 2016, and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) filed Nov. 14, 2016. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed Sept. 13, 2016, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final
Act.”) mailed July 16, 2015.
Appeal 2017-001822
Application 13/539,230
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention concerns devices and methods for providing shortcut
touch gestures with haptic feedback. The method includes receiving a touch
gesture at a user interface surface, determining a recognition level of the
touch gesture, which is based on a similarity between the touch gesture and a
predetermined shortcut touch gesture, and varying the frequency and/or
amplitude of a generated a haptic effect at the user interface when the
recognition level increases or decreases. Spec. Tflf 1, 3—11; Abstract.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for triggering an action based on a
shortcut gesture, the method comprising:
receiving a touch gesture at a surface of a user interface of
an electronic device, the touch gesture comprising a continuous
movement on the surface;
determining a recognition level of the touch gesture during
the receiving, the recognition level being based on a similarity
between the touch gesture and a predetermined shortcut touch
gesture associated with an application action;
generating a haptic effect at the user interface during the
receiving and varying a frequency, or an amplitude, or a
combination of a frequency and an amplitude of the haptic effect
when the recognition level increases during the receiving and
varying the frequency, or the amplitude, or the combination of
the frequency and the amplitude of the haptic effect when the
recognition level decreases during the receiving; and
triggering an application action associated with the
predetermined shortcut touch gesture if the recognition level
exceeds a threshold.
2
Appeal 2017-001822
Application 13/539,230
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—4, 7—13, and 16—18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kolmykov-Zotov et al. (US
2005/0275638 Al, published Dec. 15, 2005) (“Kolmykov-Zotov”) and
Heubel et al. (US 2009/0085878 Al, published Apr. 2, 2009) (“Heubel”).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kolmykov-Zotov, Heubel, and Miller et al. (US
2011/0283241 Al, published Nov. 17, 2011) (“Miller”).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kolmykov-Zotov, Heubel, and Price et al. (US
2010/0229129 Al, published Sept. 9, 2010) (“Price”).
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants’ contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issues before us follow:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Kolmykov-Zotov and
Heubel collectively would have taught or suggested:
generating a haptic effect at the user interface during the
receiving and varying a frequency, or an amplitude, or a
combination of a frequency and an amplitude of the haptic effect
when the recognition level increases during the receiving and
varying the frequency, or the amplitude, or the combination of
the frequency and the amplitude of the haptic effect when the
recognition level decreases during the receiving
within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations
of claim 10?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Kolmykov-Zotov and
Heubel collectively would have taught or suggested “wherein the
3
Appeal 2017-001822
Application 13/539,230
determining the recognition level of the touch gesture comprises comparing
a loci of points on the surface as the touch gesture is being received with a
symbol associated with application action” as recited in Appellants’ claim 2?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Kolmykov-Zotov and
Heubel collectively would have taught or suggested “wherein the generating
the haptic effect comprises generating a first haptic effect that simulates a
coefficient of friction when the recognition level of the touch gesture is low,
and generating a second haptic effect that simulates a texture when the
recognition level of the touch gesture is high” as recited in Appellants’ claim
7?
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10—13, and 16—18
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10—13, and 16—18 together as a
group and do not separately argue independent claim 10 or dependent claims
3, 4, 8, 9, 11—13, and 16—18. See App. Br. 6. Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 as representative of Appellants’ arguments and
grouping with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10-13, and 16—18. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—5), and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3—
4) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following for
emphasis.
4
Appeal 2017-001822
Application 13/539,230
Appellants contend that Kolmykov-Zotov and Heubel do not teach the
disputed features of representative claim 1. See App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 2—
5. Specifically, Appellants contend “Heubel does not disclose or suggest
varying such haptic effects when the recognition level changes''’ and instead
“discloses that a haptic effect can be generated” that increases or decreases
“in amplitude or frequency to communicate the sensation of’ increasing or
decreasing a “virtual window or object size” responsive to “a user moving
two or more fingers” further apart or closer together “while touching a
touchscreen.” App. Br. 6. Appellants further contend that “even if
combined, the combination” of Kolmykov-Zotov and Heubel “results in
increasing or decreasing amplitude or frequency when a virtual window or
object size increases [or decreases] in size when a user moves two finger
apart [or together], not increasing or decreasing amplitude or frequency as
the recognition level changes.” App. Br. 6—7.
We agree with the Examiner and find a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the combination of Kolmykov-Zotov and Heubel would
have taught or at least suggested the disputed features of Appellants’ claim
1. The Examiner relies on Kolmykov-Zotov to teach the feature of a
recognition level and providing feedback in response to a change in
recognition level. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Kolmykov-Zotov
describes a recognition level (confidence level) that a gesture is recognized,
as well as providing feedback to a user when a gesture is recognized and the
recognition/confidence level increases. See Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 3^4 (citing
Kolmykov-Zotov ^fl[ 51—55, 61; Figs. 7, 8). Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Kolmykov-Zotov. The Examiner also
finds that Heubel teaches varying the amplitude and/or frequency of a haptic
5
Appeal 2017-001822
Application 13/539,230
effect based on recognition of multi-touch contacts on a touch screen user
interface. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 3^4 (citing Heubel Tflf 21—23). Appellants
do not directly dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to Heubel.
Instead, Appellants argue the references individually and do not
address the specific arguments set out by the Examiner. Compare Final Act.
3^4 and Ans. 3^4 with App. Br. 4—7 and Reply Br. 2—5. The Kolmykov-
Zotov and Heubel references cited by the Examiner must be read, not in
isolation, but for what each fairly teaches in combination with the prior art
as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references).
Appellants’ arguments do not take into account what the combination
of Kolmykov-Zotov and Heubel would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art —
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
We find that it would have been well within the skill of a person of
ordinary skill in the art to combine such known techniques to recognize
gestures and provide feedback as taught by Kolmykov-Zotov, and varying a
haptic effect responsive to touch contacts as taught by Heubel. See KSR
Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[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
6
Appeal 2017-001822
Application 13/539,230
her skill” (citations omitted)). Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence or reasoning establishing that combining the respective familiar
elements of the cited references in the manner proffered by the Examiner
would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art” at the time of Appellants’ invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citingKSR, 550
U.S.at418).
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, independent
claim 10, and dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 11—13, and 16—18, not separately
argued with particularity (supra).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claim 2
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 2 as being obvious in view of
Kolmykov-Zotov and Heubel. See Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that
Kolmykov-Zotov describes determining the recognition level of a touch
gesture by recognizing a loci of points on a surface. Final Act. 3—4, 6; Ans.
4 (citing Kolmykov-Zotov 129). Appellants contend that Kolmykov-Zotov
and Heubel do not teach the disputed features of claim 2. See App. Br. 7—8;
Reply Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants contend “Kolmykov-Zotov do[es] not
disclose recognition level by comparing a loci of points” or “address how
the gesture is recognized.” App. Br. 8. While we agree with Appellants that
Kolmykov-Zotov does not explicitly disclose a comparison (as recited) to
determine recognition level, Kolmykov-Zotov describes shape recognition to
perform an operation (see Ans. 4; Kolmykov-Zotov ]Hf 54—55, 61; Figs. 5—8)
and we find recognition of an input corresponding to a shape at least
7
Appeal 2017-001822
Application 13/539,230
suggests a comparison. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 2. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claim 7
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 7 as being obvious in view of
Kolmykov-Zotov and Heubel. See Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner finds that
Heubel describes determining simulating friction or texture in that Heubel
describes varying a haptic effect when moving fingers closer together or
further apart. Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 4—5 (citing Heubel 122). Appellants
contend that Kolmykov-Zotov and Heubel do not teach the disputed features
of claim 7. See App. Br. 8—10. Specifically, Appellants contend “Heubel
does not disclose a first haptic effect simulating a coefficient of friction and
a second haptic effect simulating a texture.” App. Br. 9. While we agree
with Appellants that Heubel does not explicitly disclose a haptic effect
simulating friction or texture, Heubel describes varying haptic effects “to
communicate the sensation of. . . movement” (Heubel 122), to simulate
turning a knob (such as detents) (Heubel 123), and to communicate “the
action of physically dragging” an object (Heubel 124). We find varying
haptic effects to simulate movement and/or dragging at least suggests
simulating friction or texture. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 7. Accordingly, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections of Claim 5, 6, 14, 15
With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 6 and
15 (rejected as obvious over Kolmykov-Zotov, Heubel, and Miller) and
dependent claims 5 and 14 (rejected as obvious over Kolmykov-Zotov,
8
Appeal 2017-001822
Application 13/539,230
Heubel, and Price), we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
these claims for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 {supra).
Appellants do not separately argue the rejections of these claims with
particularity. App. Br. 10-11.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
9