Ex Parte Perski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

11889598 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
11/889,598 08/15/2007 Haim Perski 41838 (346109-US-NP) 3788
69316 7590 05/01/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
HORNER, JONATHAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAIM PERSKI
Appeal 2015-001850
Application 11/889,5981
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST JOHN COURTENAY III, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-16, 20-31, 33—37, and
39-47. App. Br. 2. Claims 5, 9, 17, 32, and 38 have been canceled. Id. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as N-trig Ltd. App. Br. 2. An
Oral Hearing was held in this appeal on April 20, 2017.
Appeal 2015-001850
Application 11/889,598
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a gesture digitizer that switches from a standard
detection mode to a gesture detection mode upon detecting that an input
gesture provided by a user includes a body part and an inanimate object (i.e.,
stylus + finger touch). Spec. 2:17—31. Fig. 6. Subsequently, the detected
input gesture is matched to a predefined event in a gesture database. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for detecting gestures with a digitizer, the method
comprising:
storing a database of pre-defmed gestures, wherein the
pre-defmed gestures are defined to include one part input from
a body part and another part input from an inanimate object;
switching from a standard detection to gesture detection
responsive to identifying any event that includes one part input
from a body part and another part input from an inanimate
object; and
matching input from the event to a pre-defmed gesture
from the database of pre-defmed gestures based on one part
input being from the body part and another part input being
from the inanimate object.
D’Amico et al.
Perski et al.,
Wu et al.,
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 5,956,020
US 2003/0098858 Al
US 2005/0052427 Al
Sept. 21, 1999
May. 29, 2003
Mar. 10,2005
2
Appeal 2015-001850
Application 11/889,598
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—4, 6, 7, 10-16, 18, 20-31, 33—37, and 39-47 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu
and D’Amico. Final Act. 4—17.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wu, D’Amico and Perski. Final Act.
17-18.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6—17, and the Reply Brief, pages 1—3.2 We have
reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments. We
are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
hereinbelow, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans. 2—5,
Final Act. 5—10. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that the
combination of Wu and D’Amico does not teach or suggest switching to the
gesture mode responsive to receiving input from a body part and an
inanimate object. App. Br. 6—7. In particular, Appellant argues D’Amico
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer
to the Appeal Brief (filed August 18, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
November 18, 2014), and the Answer (mailed September 19, 2014) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to
be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3
Appeal 2015-001850
Application 11/889,598
discloses a programmed application running on a host computer selecting a
Pen Only, a Finger Only mode, or a Pen/Finger mode, as opposed to
switching to the gesture mode (from the standard mode) in response to
detecting the user input. Id. at 14 (citing D’Amico 8:36-43). According to
Appellant, because the mode selection in D’Amico is performed by the
programmed application regardless of the input provided by the user, the
source input has no effect on the selection of the mode. Id. Further,
Appellant argues that there are no instances in D’Amico where both pen and
finger contact is sent to the host computer or used together. That is, if the
controller detects both pen and finger inputs, pen contact has higher priority.
Id at 14—15. Additionally, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance
upon Wu’s disclosure to teach switching from a standard mode to a gesture
mode is improper, because the switching provided in D’Amico is not
comparable to Wu’s. Id. at 15 (citing Wu 134). These arguments are not
persuasive.
We note at the outset Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s
finding that D’Amico discloses three modes including (1) Pen Only, (2)
Finger Only, and (3) Pen and Finger together. App. Br. 15, Ans. 3^4. We
agree with the Examiner that the Pen and Finger mode operates differently
from the other two modes, and requires the presence of both pen and finger.
Ans. 4. Although upon detecting of both Pen and Finger, the controller will
give priority to the Pen to thereby send Pen coordinate data to the computer,
we agree with the Examiner that the detection of both pen and finger inputs
triggers the selection of the Pen and Finger mode, as opposed to the other
two modes. Id. (citing D’Amico 11:25—29). Therefore, we find that the
selection of the Pen and Finger mode teaches or suggests switching to the
4
Appeal 2015-001850
Application 11/889,598
gesture mode from the standard (Pen or Finger) mode. Further, we are not
persuaded that Wu’s mode switching system is incompatible with
D’Amico’s. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Wu discloses a digitizer
for recognizing input gestures provided by a user by way of an inanimate
object (e.g. stylus) or a body part (finger). Further, D’Amico discloses
recognizing when both the stylus and the finger are input together to thereby
switch to the Pen and Finger mode. We thus, agree with the Examiner that
because both Wu and D’Amico are related to a digitizer recognizing user
inputs, and that the proposed combination of Wu and D’Amico would
predictably result in a digitizer that recognizes an input containing both an
inanimate part and a body member, the proposed combination is proper.
Ans. 4—8. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has established in this record
sufficient rational underpinning to support the proposed combination.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu and
D’Amico. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2—4, 6—8, 10—16, 20—31, 33—37,
and 39-47, Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See
37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(vii).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim
1^1, 6-8, 10-16, 20-31, 33-37, and 39-47.
5
Appeal 2015-001850
Application 11/889,598
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
6