Ex Parte Sakurada

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

12564953 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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.
1946-0210 9480
EXAMINER
BASOM, BLAINE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/564,953 09/23/2009
142241 7590 02/17/2017
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
Akiko Sakurada
02/17/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKIKO SAKURADA
Appeal 2016-004265
Application 127564,95s1
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, HUNG H. BUI, and
JOSEPH LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—21, which are all claims
pending on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sony Corp. App. Br. 3
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 28, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed March 14, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 13, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed
October 22, 2014 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed September
23,2009 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-004265
Application 12/564,953
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant acknowledges, as a background of his invention:
“[w]hen a plurality of windows are displayed being arranged in
an overlapping manner on the desktop, there have been operation
procedures to secure on the desktop an area where no window is
displayed, as follows. (1) To shift or reduce the size of each
window on the desktop, with a pointing device such as a mouse
or a pointer. (2) To minimize all windows at once with the
shortcut key.
Spec. 14. “For example, when icons were arranged on the desktop and a
plurality of windows were displayed being arranged in an overlapping
manner over the icons, in order to select an icon, it was necessary to [1] shift
or reduce the size of a window one by one or [2] to minimize all the
windows.” Spec. 1 5 (emphasis added). However, these actions are time
consuming or inefficient. Id.
As such, Appellant’s invention seeks to provide an “improved
information processing apparatus and method and program capable of
promptly and simply removing an object [i.e., window] displayed in a
covered region on a screen covered by a subject of operation [i.e., user’s
hand] from the covered region.” Spec. H 6, 61.
“For example, when a part of screen is covered by the user’s hand
10, windows activated on the part of screen covered by the user
can be shifted to an area on the screen outside the part covered
by the user, so that an operation region (operation area) where
the windows are removed can be made. In the operation region,
operation that does not use the activated windows is possible.
Moreover, in the method of the present embodiment, the area of
the operation area can be changed according to the covered area.
Furthermore, with an easy operation procedure in which the
user’s hand 10 is held over the screen, operations of designating
2
Appeal 2016-004265
Application 12/564,953
an operation area and shifting a plurality of objects (for example,
windows) can be realized at the same time.
Spec. 1 62 (emphasis added).
Representative Claim
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. An information processing apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor;
a display unit configured to display an image having one
or more objects on a screen based on image data using the at
least one processor;
at least one presence detection sensor;
a proximity detection unit configured to detect at least
one of contact and proximity between a user’s hand and the
screen, based on data received from the at least one presence
detection sensor using the at least one processor;
a covered area calculation unit configured to calculate a
covered area of a covered region comprising the size of the area
that the user’s hand is in at least one of contact and in proximity
to the at least one presence detection sensor using the at least
one processor;
an overlapped area calculation unit configured to
calculate an overlapped area of the one or more objects with the
user’s hand, wherein the overlapped area is the size of the area
where the covered region overlaps the object using the at least
one processor;
a covered time measurement unit configured to measure
a covered time when the screen is covered by at least one of
contact and proximity of the user’s hand using the at least one
processor; and
an object display control unit configured to remove the
one or more objects from the covered region based on the
measured cover time and the calculated overlapped area using
the at least one processor,
wherein the object display control unit is configured to
remove the one or more objects based on the covered region if
3
Appeal 2016-004265
Application 12/564,953
the covered region represents at least a substantial portion of
the user’s hand, and
wherein the at least the substantial portion of the user’s
hand is greater than a user’s finger that is part of the user’s
hand.
App. Br. 27—28 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejections and References3
(1) Claims 1—8 and 13—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Pihlaja (US 2009/0002326 Al; published Jan. 1,
2009), Rosenberg (US 2007/0097096 Al; published May 3, 2007), Baudisch
et al. (US 7,692,629 B2; issued Apr. 6, 2010; “Baudisch”), and Westerman
et al. (US 2008/0168403 Al; published July 10, 2008; “Westerman”). Ans.
2-8.
(2) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pihlaja, Rosenberg, Baudisch, Westerman, and Ludtke
(US 2004/0239649 Al; published Dec. 2, 2004). Ans. 8-9.
(3) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pihlaja, Rosenberg, Baudisch, Westerman, and Heikkinen
et al. (US 6,073,036; issued June 6, 2000; “Heikkinen”). Ans. 9-10.
(4) Claims 9 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pihlaja, Rosenberg, Baudisch, Westerman, and
Nozawa (US 2008/0291430 Al; published Nov. 27, 2008). Ans. 10-11.
3 The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-
AIA), first paragraph is withdrawn (Ans. 11) and, therefore, not considered
herein.
4
Appeal 2016-004265
Application 12/564,953
ISSUE
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue presented on
appeal is whether the prior art teaches or suggests the two “wherein” clauses
of Appellant’s claims 1, 7, and 8, including: [1] “wherein the object display
control unit is configured to remove the one or more objects based on the
covered region if the covered region represents at least a substantial portion
of the user’s hand,” and [2] “wherein the at least the substantial portion of
the user’s hand is greater than a user’s finger that is part of the user’s hand.”
App. Br. 14—25; Reply Br. 4—6.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1—8, 11, and 13—20
With respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 8, the Examiner finds
Pihlaja teaches an information processing apparatus [shown in Figure 1],
comprising: (1) “at least one processor”; (2) “a display unit configured to
display an image having one or more objects on a screen based on image
data”; (3) “at least one presence detection sensor [e.g., touchscreen]”; (4) “a
proximity detection unit [e.g., software executed by a processor] configured
to detect at least one of contact and proximity between a user’s hand and the
screen, based on data received from the at least one presence detection
sensor”; and (5) “an object display control unit configured to remove [i.e.
shift] one or more objects displayed in a covered region on the screen that is
covered by the user’s hand using the at least one processor.” Ans. 2—3
(citing Pihlaja ^fl[ 28—30, 34, 36, 38, 40, Figs. 1 and 3A—3C).
The Examiner relies on Rosenberg for teaching (6) “a covered area
calculation unit configured to calculate a covered area of a covered region . .
5
Appeal 2016-004265
Application 12/564,953
and Baudisch for teaching: (7) “an overlapped area calculation unit
configured to calculate an overlapped area of the one or more objects with
the user’s hand,” and (8) “a covered time measurement unit configured to
measure a covered time when the screen is covered by at least one of contact
and proximity of the user’s hand . . Ans. 4—5 (citing Rosenberg || 8, 10,
12, 46, 53; Baudisch 1:24—29, 5:39-65, 9:12-58).
The Examiner also relies on Westerman for teaching the wherein
clauses of claim 1, for example: “wherein the object display control unit is
configured to remove the one or more objects based on the covered region if
the covered region represents at least a substantial portion of the user’s
hand,” and “wherein the at least the substantial portion of the user’s hand is
greater than a user’s finger that is part of the user’s hand.” Ans. 5—6 (citing
Westerman 11 10-11, 62-65, 99-100, 119, 145-147).
Appellant contends none of the cited prior art references (including
Westerman) teaches or suggests the wherein clauses: (1) “wherein the
object display control unit is configured to remove the one or more objects
based on the covered region if the covered region represents at least a
substantial portion of the user’s hand,” and (2) “wherein the at least the
substantial portion of the user’s hand is greater than a user’s finger that is
part of the user’s hand,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15—22; Reply Br. 4—
6. For example, Appellant argues:
(1) Pihlaja does not teach or suggest “a covered portion being
a user’s hand, which is more than just a finger” and, as such,
“does not disclose removing the one or more objects based on
the covered region if the covered region represents at least a
substantial portion of the user’s hand”;
(2) Rosenberg also does not teach or suggest “a covered
portion being a user’s hand, which is more than just a finger” but
6
Appeal 2016-004265
Application 12/564,953
instead teaches “the size of the touchscreen covered by the user’s
finger”;
(3) Baudisch does not teach or suggest “a covered portion
being a user’s hand, which is more than just a finger” but instead
teaches placing the user’s “finger over the desired target on the
touchscreen”; and
(4) Likewise, Westerman does not teach or suggest “the
removing the one or more objects based on the covered region if
the covered resion represents at least a substantial portion of the
user’s hand, and wherein the at least the substantial portion of
the user’s hand is greater than a user’s finger that is part of the
user’s hand”
App. Br. 16—17. According to Appellant, the cited paragraphs 145—147 of
Westerman teaches interpreting “real-world” gestures, such as hand or finger
movements/orientations to mean intended operations, for example, a
“hitchhiker gesture” to perform operations requiring a directional input, such
as “scrolling, panning, windowing, translating in time (e.g., moving
backward or forward in time in an audio or video recording), and the like.”
App. Br. 18—19 (citing Westerman || 145—147, Figs. 24A—24H).
For example, Westerman’s Figs. 24A—24B are reproduced below:
7
Appeal 2016-004265
Application 12/564,953
Westerman’s Fig. 24A shows a right hand 2400 executing a “hitchhiker”
gesture” while Fig. 24B shows images of touch 2406 corresponding to the
“hitchhiker” gesture.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that:
“scrolling the content displayed on the screen, which is
performed in response to Westerman’s hitchhiker gesture, would
entail scrolling content out of the region covered by the user’s
hand, i.e., removing one or more objects from the covered
region.”
Ans. 15. According to the Examiner, “when the user applies the hitchhiker
gesture, the area that the user’s hand [shown in Westerman’s Figs. 24A—
24B] is in contact or proximity to the screen (i.e. the ‘covered region’)
represents a substantial portion of the user’s hand, greater than a user’s
finger that is part of the user’s hand” and “content displayed on the screen is
scrolled or panned.” Ans. 17—18.
8
Appeal 2016-004265
Application 12/564,953
We disagree with the Examiner. Obviousness is a question of law
based on underlying factual findings, In re Baxter, 678 F.3d 1357, 1361
(Fed. Cir. 2012), including what a reference teaches, In re Beattie, 974 F.2d
1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and the existence of a reason to combine
references, In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1365—66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). At the
outset, we note the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Westerman are not
supported by evidence. According to Westerman, “scrolling can be initiated
by placing four fingers on the touch pad [e.g., touch screen] so that the
scrolling gesture is recognized, and thereafter moving these fingers on the
touch pad to perform scrolling events.” Westerman 19. Westerman
recognizes that such scrolling gesture “can be limited and in many instances
counterintuitive” and proposes using a “hitchhiker gesture” pointing in
different directions to perform operations such as scrolling, panning,
windowing, translating in time, and the like. Westerman || 9, 145—147.
However, these scrolling operations do not represent “one or more objects
[i.e., windows] on a screen” that are being “removed from the covered
region” [1] “based on the measured cover time” and [2] “the calculated
overlapped area” and [3] “if the covered region represents at least a
substantial portion of the user’s hand” that “is greater than a user’s finger” in
the manner recited in Appellant’s claim 1, and similarly, claims 7 and 8.
For these reasons, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1, and similarly, independent claims 7 and 8
and their respective dependent claims 2—6, and 9-21. App. Br. 22—25.
9
Appeal 2016-004265
Application 12/564,953
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—21.
REVERSED
10