Ex Parte TranDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 201311230236 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BAO Q. TRAN ____________________ Appeal 2010-012325 Application 11/230,236 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-012325 Application 11/230,236 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-21.1 Claim 17 has been withdrawn due to the restriction requirement of March 3, 2009. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s Disclosed Invention Appellant’s disclosed invention pertains to an input/output method (Fig. 2) and apparatus (Figs. 1 and 3-5) for a portable data device (Abs.; Spec. 2; claims 1, 11, and 20). A camera 5 (Fig. 1) of a phone 10 (Figs. 3-5) can capture images of a user’s fingers on a keyboard pattern, e.g., keyboard region 32 (Spec. 2:3-4 and 5:1-11; Figs. 1 and 5; Abs.). Exemplary Claim on Appeal Claim 1 on appeal, with emphasis added, reads as follows: 1. A method to provide input/output for a portable data device, comprising: projecting a keyboard pattern on a first region using a light projector; capturing one or more images of a user's digits on the keyboard pattern with a camera; decoding a character being typed on the keyboard pattern; and displaying the typed character on a second region using the light projector. 1 Claim 17 stands withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention. Appeal 2010-012325 Application 11/230,236 3 Rejections on Appeal (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 10-16, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rafii (US 6,614,422 B1) and Fong (US 2005/0012721 A1). Ans. 4-9. (2) The Examiner rejected claims, 8, 9, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rafii, Fong, and Goldthwaite (US 2004/0019564 A1). Ans. 10. Appellant’s Contentions (1) Appellant contends (App. Br. 3-7; Reply Br. 1-3) that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for numerous reasons, including: (a) Rafii fails to disclose a “camera” for capturing one or more images of a user’s fingers on a keyboard pattern as recited in claims 1, 11, and 20 (App. Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 1-2); and (b) because Rafii’s sensor emits radiation, it cannot be a camera (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 1). (2) Appellant presents no arguments at all regarding claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 which stand rejected over Rafii, Fong, and Goldthwaite in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief. Examiner’s Response At pages 13-14 of the Answer, the Examiner cites to several references to support the assertion of Official Notice taken in the rejection with regard to (i) claims 2 and 12 (Ans. 7-8 and 13), (ii) claims 3 and 13 (Ans. 8 and 13-14), and (iii) claim 7 (Ans. 9 and 14). Appellant does not dispute these findings in the Reply Brief (see generally Reply Br. 1-3). Appeal 2010-012325 Application 11/230,236 4 Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-9, 10-16, and 18-21 as being obvious because Rafii, and therefore the base combination of Rafii and Fong, fails to teach or suggest a “camera” for “capturing one or more images” as set forth in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in remaining independent claims 11 and 20? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 3-9) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-4) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-10). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. “[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010). According to Appellant’s Specification, a camera 5 (Fig. 1) of a phone 10 (Figs. 3-5) can capture one or more images of a user’s fingers on a Appeal 2010-012325 Application 11/230,236 5 keyboard pattern, e.g., keyboard region 32 (Spec. 2:3-4 and 5:1-11; Figs. 1 and 5; Abs.; originally filed claims 1 and 11). Appellant’s Specification does not define “camera” any further than to describe the camera 5 function as that of capturing one or more images of a user’s digits on a keyboard pattern as the user types by making finger strokes on the pattern (Spec. 2: 3- 4 and 5:2 and 9-10; Abs., ll. 2-3; originally filed claims 1 and 11). In light of Appellant’s description of the functionality of a camera found in Appellant’s Specification just discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation of representative claim 1 and the term “camera,” as encompassing Rafii’s three dimensional sensor 20 (Fig. 1A) which is focused on a user’s fingers 30 of a user’s hands 40 to capture images as the user types on a keyboard pattern, such as on a template 70 or virtual keyboard 50 (see col. 7, ll. 36-42; col. 11, ll. 2-7; col. 20, ll. 5- 8; Fig. 1A). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11) that Rafii’s sensor 20 meets the “camera” limitation found in claims 1, 11, and 20, and that the language of the claims does not prohibit the camera from also emitting radiation.2 Appellant has not sufficiently rebutted the Examiner’s findings with respect to Rafii or otherwise shown, on this record, that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “camera” found in claims 1, 11, and 20 as encompassing Rafii’s three dimensional sensor 20 is in error. Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification (Spec. 2:3-4 and 5:1-11; Figs. 1 and 5; Abs.; 2 Notably, one of ordinary skill in the art of cameras and cellular telephones would be aware that many cell phone cameras include flashes, which emit light (i.e., a form of radiation). Accordingly, Appellant’s notion that the emission of radiation somehow prevents a device from being a camera is not well-taken. Appeal 2010-012325 Application 11/230,236 6 originally filed claims 1 and 11) fails to contradict, and even supports, the Examiner’s interpretation of “camera” as meaning a device that captures one or more images. Appellant’s contention (App. Br. 8) that the Examiner’s reliance on Official Notice with regard to claims 5 and 15 is not persuasive since the Examiner relies on design choice, and not Official Notice (Ans. 8 and 14). Similarly, Appellant’s contention (App. Br. 8) that the Examiner’s reliance on Official Notice with regard to claims 6 and 16 is not persuasive since the Examiner relies on portions of Rafii’s Figure 1A as teaching the images, surfaces, and light projector recited by the claims (Ans. 7). In addition, we note that the Examiner has taken Official Notice with regard to claim 10, and Appellant has not presented any arguments in rebuttal. In view of the foregoing, Appellant’s contentions (App. Br. 3-9) that Rafii, and thus the base combination of Rafii and Fong, fails to teach or suggest the method and apparatuses recited in claims 1, 11, and 20 are not persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 20, as well as claims 2-7, 10, 12-16, and 21 depending respectively therefrom. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 from which claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 respectively depend. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 10-16, 20, and 21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rafii and Fong. Appeal 2010-012325 Application 11/230,236 7 (2) Appellant has not separately argued or otherwise shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rafii, Fong, and Goldwaite. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-16 and 18-21 are 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation