Ex Parte Pilkington et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 201612197918 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 12/197,918 78046 7590 SHERMAN IP LLP 1519 26th Street FILING DATE 08/25/2008 02/18/2016 Santa Monica, CA 90404 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Adam Pilkington 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. GB920080102US1 3202 EXAMINER MATTHEWS, ANDRE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2016 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): nielsen@sziplaw.com patent@shermanip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADAM PILKINGTON and SIMON C.E. ROWLAND Appeal2014-002127 Application 12/197,918 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, CATHERINE SHIANG, and MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-002127 Application 12/197,918 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-20. Claims 12 and 17 are canceled. Br. 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Invention Appellants invented an input device integrating a mouse and joystick. See Spec. ,-i 1; Abst. Representative Claim Representative claim 1 is reproduced below with key recitations emphasized. 1. A position input device, comprising: a mouse module coupled to a moveable mouse, wherein the mouse module provides coarse position information based on movement of the mouse relative to a support surface, the mouse including a mouse body having a housing; a joystick module coupled to a joystick, wherein the joystick module provides fine position information based on movement of the joystick, the joystick being disposed in the housing and supported by the mouse body; and a controller that receives input from the mouse module based on the movement of the mouse relative to a support surface, and that receives input from the joystick module based on movement of the joystick, wherein the controller senses whether the joystick is extended or retracted; 2 Appeal2014-002127 Application 12/197,918 wherein the joystick has a retracted position and an extended position relative to the housing, such that in the extended position, movement of the joystick provides fine position information, wherein coarse position information and fine input information are provided as input position information to the controller based on using a laser for sensing movement of the joystick, wherein the movement of the joystick is sensed based on whether the joystick is in the retracted position or the extended position, the controller is calibrated for translating the joystick movement into fine movements of a pointer on a display screen when the joystick is extended, and is calibrated for translating the mouse movement into coarse movement of the pointer on the display screen when the joystick is retracted. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The Examiner rejects claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haywood (US 2003/0214484 Al; Nov. 20, 2003), Nikom (US 6,452,587 Bl; Sept. 17, 2002), and Abrams (US 2009/0225028 Al; Sept. 10, 2009). Final Act. 2-9. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Haywood, Nikom, and Abrams teaches or suggests a "controller [that] senses whether the joystick is extended or retracted," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Examiner's Final Action and Answer. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. 3 Appeal2014-002127 Application 12/197,918 Appellants argue the applied prior art fails to suggest claim l's "controller [that] senses whether the joystick is extended or retracted[.]" Br. 10-12. In particular, Appellants contend certain features of each reference fail to teach or suggest the controller limitation. Id. at 9-12. For example, Appellants contend: "In Haywood, the sensor on the bottom of surface 502 cannot sense movement of the joystick, but only the change in weight; and Haywood does not use a laser for sensing movement of the joystick." Id. at 11. Appellants further contend: "The switch in Nikom operates to switch modes where one mode becomes inoperable (see, e.g., Nikom, col. 2, lines 14-20)." Id. Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive, because they merely reiterate certain features of references, but fail: (1) to show the reiterated features are applied against claim l's controller limitation and (2) to identify a distinction between the reiterated features and the controller limitation. Appellants' contentions also neglect the Examiner's express finding that Haywood's Figure IO-particularly steps 904 and 906-teaches or suggests claim l's controller limitation. Ans. 1 O; see also Final Act. 3 (citing Haywood ,-i 64 ). Thus, Appellants fail to show the applied prior art does not suggest the controller limitation. Appellants also argue "combining the teachings ofNikom and Abrams to that of Haywood would change the principle of operation as the invention of Haywood requires the joystick release button 140 to change from mouse mode to joystick mode, Nikom requires a switch, and Abrams is immobile." Br. 12. The argument is unpersuasive, because it fails to establish any of the above features as both (i) changed by the Examiner's 4 Appeal2014-002127 Application 12/197,918 proposed combination of prior art teachings and (ii) constituting a principle of operation. Appellants also argue "the device in Abrams is fixed within a housing and immobile[, whereas claim l's] mouse is moveable." Id. The argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner cites Haywood-not Abrams-for teaching a mouse. Final Act. 2. Also, to the extent Appellants are again arguing a change in principle of operation, such argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Appellants' remaining arguments are merely naked assertions of error (see Br. 11-12); which are not persuasive. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[M]ere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements [are] not found in the prior art" is not persuasive of error.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is ... not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case[.]"). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2-5, 7-10, 13-16, and 20 falling therewith. Appellants' conclusory allegations with respect to claims 6, 11, 18, and 19 fail to show specific error in the Examiner's rejection of these claims. See Br. 13-15. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 6, 11, 18, and 19. 5 Appeal2014-002127 Application 12/197,918 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation