Ex Parte ROBERTS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2015

12471160 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/471,160 0512212009
25537 7590 02/11/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian F. ROBERTS
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.
20080505 5319
EXAMINER
PATEL, PREMAL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN F. ROBERTS, RYAN EV ANS, MICHAEL J. NAGGAR,
DONALD H. REL YEA, and HEATH STALLINGS
Appeal2014-001700
Application 12/471,160
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). Claims 10 and 17 are canceled.
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest "is Verizon
Communications Inc. and its subsidiary companies, which currently include
Verizon Business Global, LLC (formerly MCI, LLC) and Cellco Partnership
(doing business as Verizon Wireless, and which includes as a minority
partner affiliates of Vodafone Group Plc)." App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-001700
Application 12/ 471,160
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a drawing interface to aid in the
precision for drawing on capacitive touch screens." Spec. i-f 10. Claims 1
and 11 illustrate the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
detecting a touch on a surface of a touch screen
associated with a computing device;
determining, by the computing device, a location of the
touch on the surface of the touch screen;
determining, by the computing device, dimensions of the
touch on the surface of the touch screen;
calculating, by the computing device, a location of a
drawing tip associated with the location of the touch based on
the location of the touch and the dimensions of the touch, the
location of the drawing tip being outside the dimensions of the
touch;
determining, by the computing device, at least one of a
size or a type of a drawing tip image to be displayed as an
extension of a finger, of a user, that is touching the touch screen
based on preferences of the user;
displaying, by the computing device and on the touch
screen, the drawing tip image at the location of the drawing tip
based on the at least one of the size or the type; and
removing the drawing tip image from display on the
touch screen upon removal of the touch from the surface of the
touch screen.
11. A device comprising:
a memory to store a plurality of instructions;
a touch-sensitive display; and
a processor to execute the plurality of instructions in the
memory to:
2
Appeal2014-001700
Application 12/ 471,160
detect a touch on the touch-sensitive display, the
touch having a touch path of movement,
determine a dimension of the touch on the
touch-sensitive display,
determine locations of the touch along the touch
path of movement,
display, on the touch-sensitive display, a drawing
tool at a fixed distance outside the dimension of the touch
and along a drawing tool path that is based on the
locations of the touch along the touch path of movement,
the touch path of movement being different from the
drawing tool path; and
generate a line corresponding to the drawing tool
path, the line being apart from the touch path of
movement.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wilson (US 2006/0244735 Al; published Nov. 2,
2006), Vaisanen et al. (US 2010/0214218 Al; published Aug. 26, 2010)
("Vaisanen"), and Dutta et al. (US 2002/0075333 Al; published June 20,
2002) ("Dutta"). See Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 11, 13-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wilson and Kubo et al. (US 20070035514 Al; published
Feb .15, 2007) ("Kubo"). See Final Act. 8-11.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wilson, Kubo, and Vaisanen. See Final Act. 11-12.
Claims 3, 4, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wilson, Vaisanen, Dutta, and Narusawa
(US 2009/0135153 Al; published May 28, 2009). See Final Act. 13-15.
3
Appeal2014-001700
Application 12/ 471,160
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wilson, Vaisanen, Dutta, and Karlsson (US 2010/005 3111 A 1;
published Mar. 4, 2010). See Final Act. 15-16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. We
adopt the reasoning, findings, and conclusions set forth in the Answer and
the action from which this appeal was taken. We highlight certain
arguments and findings below.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 19-21
"Determining ... a Size or a Type of a Drawing Tip Image to be Displayed
as an Extension of a Finger ... Based on Preferences of the User"
Appellants argue the Examiner concedes that Wilson and V aisanen do
not teach or suggest "determining, by the computing device, at least one of a
size or a type of a drawing tip image to be dispiayed as an extension of a
finger, of a user, that is touching the touch screen based on preferences of
the user" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9. With respect to Dutta,
Appellants argue neither Dutta's active region, which surrounds a cursor to
make input selections, nor the selecting of the active region's size, shape, or
orientation teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Id. at 10; see Reply Br.
4.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner finds
Wilson teaches all of the disputed limitation except "determining ... based
on preferences of the user," for which the Examiner relies on Dutta. Final
Act. 2--4. In particular, the Examiner finds Wilson teaches displaying a
4
Appeal2014-001700
Application 12/ 471,160
pointer 120 offset by a distance b from a user's finger, where the pointer 120
is "a size or type of a drawing type image to be displayed as an extension of
a finger." See Final Act. 2-3; Wilson Fig. 2, items 90, 95, 120; i-f 52. The
Examiner finds Dutta discloses a user can select the size, shape or
orientation of an active region surrounding a cursor (the cursor and active
region collectively constituting a "drawing tip image to be displayed"),
which teaches or suggests "determining ... based on preferences of the
user." See Final Act. 4; Ans. 2-3; Dutta Fig. 3; i-fi-128-29.
To the extent Appellants' arguments attack each reference
individually, the arguments are unpersuasive because "one cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Regardless, we find no error in the Examiner's
broad but reasonable interpretation of the claimed "drawing tip image to be
displayed" as including Dutta's cursor and its active region because Dutta's
surrounding (user-selected) active region is displayed along with its cursor.
See Dutta Fig. 4, item 402; Figs. 2C-D, items 200, 201; i-f 30. Moreover, in
light of the teachings of Wilson and Dutta, determining the size, shape, or
orientation of the cursor based on a user's preference would have been well
within the inferences and creative steps employable by a person of ordinary
skill in the art. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007);
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
2009). Therefore, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error regarding the
disputed "determining" limitation of claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-001700
Application 12/ 471,160
"Removing the Drawing Tip Image From Display"
Appellants argue Vaisanen teaches "[ m ]erely deactivating the virtual
mouse [which] does not disclose or suggest 'removing the drawing tip image
from display' as recited in claim 1." App Br. 11 (emphases omitted).
The Examiner finds Vaisanen discloses activating a virtual mouse
upon detection of a touch input and teaches activating the virtual mouse
includes displaying the virtual mouse on a touch screen. Ans. 3--4 (citing
Vaisanen i-fi-135, 37, 40; Figs. 4a, 4b). The Examiner also finds Vaisanen
discloses deactivating the virtual mouse when the controller detects that the
touch input is released. Ans. 3 (citing Vaisanen i154). The Examiner finds
that because Vaisanen teaches that activating a virtual mouse upon detecting
a touch input includes displaying the virtual mouse, Vaisanen would have
suggested that deactivating the virtual mouse upon detecting that a touch
input is released removes the virtual mouse. Ans. 4 ("if activating =
displaying, then de-activating= not displaying or removing"). In support of
this finding, the Examiner notes Figure 4b displays a virtual mouse 412,
while Figure 4a does not. Ans. 4; Vaisanen Figs. 4a, 4b.
Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us these findings are
erroneous. As the Examiner finds, because Vaisanen teaches activating its
virtual mouse includes displaying a virtual mouse, deactivating the virtual
mouse suggests removing the virtual mouse "from display ... upon removal
of the touch from the surface of the touch screen" to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See Ans. 3--4; Vaisanen i154; Perfect Web, 587 F.3d at 1328; KSR,
550 U.S. at 418. We also agree that Vaisanen Figure 4b suggests displaying
a virtual mouse 412 when a user is touching the touch screen, while, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, Vaisanen Figure 4a would suggest removing from
6
Appeal2014-001700
Application 12/ 471,160
display, the virtual mouse 412 when a user is not touching or upon removal
of their touch from the touch screen. See Ans. 4; compare Vaisanen Fig. 4a
with Vaisanen Fig. 4b. Therefore, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error
regarding the disputed "removing" limitation of claim 1.
Conclusion
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 21, which were not argued
separately with particularity beyond the arguments advanced for claim 1.
See App. Br. 8-12, 22-23; Reply Br. 2-5, 13-14. We also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 19, which recites limitations
similar to those of claim 1, and dependent claim 20, neither of which was
argued separately with particularity beyond the arguments advanced for
claim 1. See App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 6-9.
Claims 11-16and18
"Generate a Line Corresponding to the Drawing Tool Path, the Line Being
Apart from the Touch Path of Movement"
Appellants argue Kubo does not teach or suggest to "generate a line
corresponding to the drawing tool path, the line being apart from the touch
path of movement" as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 16-17. According to
Appellants, forming a straight line in the lateral direction according to
movement of the mouse pointer does not teach or suggest the line being
apart from the touch path of movement. Id.
The Examiner finds ( 1) Kubo teaches generating a line corresponding
to a drawing tool path (Kubo Figs. 4A---C; i-fi-136, 58); (2) Wilson teaches a
7
Appeal2014-001700
Application 12/ 471,160
touch path of movement being apart from drawing tool path (Wilson i179
(pointer can be positioned relative to the finger 320)); and (3) that it would
have been obvious to combine Kubo and Wilson "because this will allow [a]
user to easily generate different kinds of items corresponding to the cursor
movement based on the type of operation/option as selected from the
palette." Ans. 7; Final Act. 10. The Examiner additionally finds
Appellants' arguments unpersuasive because the Examiner relied on the
combination of Wilson and Kubo to teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
Ans. 7.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive because they attack
Kubo individually, even though the Examiner relies on the combination of
Wilson and Kubo to reject the disputed limitation. See Keller, 642 F.2d at
426; Final Act. 9-10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 11, as well as dependent claims 13-16 and 18, which were not argued
separately with particularity beyond the arguments advanced for claim 11.
See App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 10-11. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 12, which depends on independent claim 11, recites a limitation
similar to the "removing" limitation of independent claim 1, and was not
argued separately with particularity beyond the arguments advanced for
claims 1 and 11. See App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 11-12.
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 22
"Display a Fixed Graphical Image ... Apart from the Path of Movement"
Appellants argue Figure 7 of Wilson does not teach or suggest
"display[ing] a fixed graphical image," as recited in claim 22. App. Br. 21
(citing Wilson Fig. 7). Appellants further argue Figure 1 of Narusawa,
8
Appeal2014-001700
Application 12/ 471,160
which displays an image of a line formed on contact pos1t10ns, does not
teach or suggest wherein the fixed graphical image is "apart from a path of
movement," as recited in claim 22. App. Br. 22 (citing Narusawa Fig. 1).
The Examiner finds (1) Narusawa's image of a line teaches a "fixed
graphical image" (Narusawa i-f 35); (2) Wilson' pointer positioned relative to
the finger teaches "the drawing tip image being apart from a path of
movement" (Wilson i-f 79, Fig. 7), and (3) that it would have been obvious to
combine Wilson and Narusawa "because this will enable user to accurately
reflect the line drawn by the user on the display even when the device is in
another operation mode thereby preventing user to redraw the line when the
device returns to the intended operation mode" (Narusawa i-fi-17, 8). Ans. 9--
10. The Examiner additionally finds Appellants' arguments unpersuasive
because the Examiner relied on the combination of Wilson and Narusawa to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Id.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive because they attack
Wilson and Narusawa individually, even though the Examiner relies on the
combination of Wilson and Narusawa to reject the disputed limitation. See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; Final Act. 13-15. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 22, as well as claims 3--4 and 7, which depend
on independent claim 1, require "displaying ... a fixed graphical image"
similar to claim 22, and were not argued separately with particularity beyond
the arguments advanced for claims 1 and 22. See App. Br. 8-12, 19--20;
Reply Br. 2-5, 12.
DECISION
9
Appeal2014-001700
Application 12/ 471,160
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-22
is AFFIRMED.
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 ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10