Ex Parte Tu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

14072933 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
14/072,933 11/06/2013 Jerome C. Tu 6430-03400/ 2541
IZ0046B1US01
35690 7590 02/02/2017
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
SITTA, GRANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg @ gmail .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEROME C. TU, CAROLA F. THOMPSON,
MARK F. FLYNN, DOUGLAS C. TWILLEAGER, DAVID A. CHAVEZ,
KEVIN D. MORISHIGE, PETER F. ULLMANN, and
ARTHUR L. BERMAN
Appeal 2017-001888
Application 14/072,933
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, JOYCE CRAIG, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—8, 11—17, and 19—29, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 9, 10, and 18 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-001888
Application 14/072,933
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “automatically
assessing a handedness of a user by tracking one or more portions of a user
and/or an input device manipulated by a user” (Spec. 11).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An automated method for assessing handedness of a
user of a system, comprising:
displaying a three dimensional (3D) stereoscopic image on
a display, wherein the 3D stereoscopic image comprises at least
one projected 3D object;
tracking a position and orientation of an input device in
open space in relation to the at least one projected 3D object of
the 3D stereoscopic image;
tracking a position and orientation of a head of the user;
and assessing a handedness of a user based on the position and
orientation of the input device with respect to the at least one
projected 3D object and relative to the position and orientation
of the head of the user.
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 6—8, 11, 14—16, 19—25, and 28' stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Nurmi (US
2009/0167702 Al; pub. July 2, 2009), Mihara et al. (US 2009/0048001 Al;
1 The Examiner did not identify claims 11, 19, 20, and 28 in the heading of
the rejection (Final Act. 9), but discussed them in the body of the rejection
(Final Act. 13, 18—19). Thus, we understand the Examiner to have rejected
claims 11, 19, 20, and 28 as unpatentable over the teachings of Nurmi,
Mihara, and Vesely, and we find the Examiner’s misstatement in the
rejection heading to be harmless error.
2
Appeal 2017-001888
Application 14/072,933
pub. Feb. 19, 2009) (“Mihara”), and Vesely (US 2012/0013613 Al; pub.
Jan. 19, 2012).
Claims 5 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Nurmi, Mihara, Vesely, and Kawamoto et
al. (US 2010/0146253 Al; pub. June 10, 2010) (“Kawamoto”).
Claims 17, 22, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Nurmi, Mihara, Vesely, and Mese et al.
(US 2006/0038780 Al; pub. Feb. 23, 2006) (“Mese”).
Claims 12, 13, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Nurmi, Mihara, Vesely, and Hinckley
(US 2012/0158629 Al; pub. June 21, 2012).
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Nurmi, Mihara, and Vesely teaches or would have
suggested “assessing a handedness” of a user “based on the position and
orientation of the input device with respect to the . . . projected 3D object
and relative to the position and orientation of the head of the user” (claim 1).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Nurmi
1. Nurmi discloses sensing an angular position of a pointing device
relative to the user interface (Abst.), wherein Figure 4 is reproduced below:
3
Appeal 2017-001888
Application 14/072,933
Figure 4 shows detecting the angle of the pointing device in first position 14
and second position 14’, which detects whether the user presses the
messaging icon 38 with the stylus from a left or right angle, wherein the
multi-feature icon (stylus angle dependent) can be indicated to the user by a
3D icon (11 50-51).
2. The angle sensor could sense whether the user was using his right or
left hand on the touch sensitive area (173).
Mihara
3. Mihara discloses an estimation unit that estimates the direction in
which the user views a screen of the display unit (1186), wherein Figures
21A-C are reproduced below:
4
Appeal 2017-001888
Application 14/072,933
Tsfjsi'iEs fe orteststS Ir ftwmaJ
f^esas\
iu 10 40pm
FIG. 21A
Sswesiboa! dspla^
10 :48pm
Tgros&i is
H
/' Vf \ :
FiG.218
I rndgi?" Q E
Figures 21A-C show a user viewing the terminal in an upright state, inverted
state, or laid down state (id.).
Vesely
4. Vesely discloses using tools within a 3D scene (Abst.), wherein a user
input device (such as a stylus) is used to interact with virtual objects of the
3D scene (142).
IV. ANALYSIS
Although Appellants acknowledge Nurmi teaches “sensing the
position and orientation of the stylus,” Appellants contend the sensed
position and orientation are “with respect to a touch screen (specifically,
5
Appeal 2017-001888
Application 14/072,933
with respect to the ‘2D image’ displayed on the touch screen)” and not with
respect to a projected 3D image as claimed (App. Br. 6). Although
Appellants further acknowledge Mihara teaches “determining a positon and
orientation of a user’s head,” Appellants also contend the determining is
based on the device’s orientation, wherein “Mihara fails to teach or suggest
‘assessing a handedness of a user’ at all” (App. Br. 7). Similarly, Appellants
then contend “Vesely never even hints at ‘assessing a handedness of a user’
at all” (App. Br. 8).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner’s findings,
and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
We note that Appellants’ contentions are directed to what Nurmi,
Mihara, and Vesely individually fail to teach. However, the test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Based on the record before us, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Nurmi, Mihara, and Vesely
teaches or at least suggests the contested limitation.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Nurmi teaches and
suggests “assessing a handedness of a user based on the position and
orientation of the input device with respect to at least one of the objects”
(Final Rej. 10). In particular, Nurmi discloses determining whether the user
was using his right or left hand based on the position and orientation of a
stylus (FF 1—2). Thus, although Appellants contend neither Mihara nor
6
Appeal 2017-001888
Application 14/072,933
Vesely hints “at ‘assessing a handedness of a user’ at all” (App. Br. 7—8), we
find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Nurmi for teaching and
suggesting this contested limitation.
Although Appellants contend that Nurmi’s assessing of a user’s
handedness is based on the position and orientation of the stylus with respect
to an icon, i.e., a “‘2D image’ displayed on the touch screen” (App. Br. 6),
we note that Nurmi discloses that the stylus-angle-dependent icon (the object
with respect to which the position and orientation of the stylus are
determined) can be a 3D icon (FF 1; see also Nurmi Fig. 5). Nevertheless,
we find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Vesely instead for teaching
and suggesting “displaying a three dimensional (3D) stereoscopic image,
projected 3D object, tracking at least one projected 3D object of the 3D
stereoscopic” (Final Rej. 12). In particular, Vesely discloses a projected 3D
object and an input device (stylus) positioned with respect to the object (FF
4).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Nurmi and Vesely teaches and suggests “assessing a
handedness” of a user “based on the position and orientation of the input
device with respect to the . . . projected 3D object,” as recited in claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Mihara teaches
tracking a positon . . . and an orientation of a head of the user” relative to the
position and orientation of a device (Final Rej. 10; FF 3). Even Appellants
concede Mihara teaches “determining a positon and orientation of a user’s
head . . . based on a device’s orientation” (App. Br. 7).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the
combination of the references for teaching and suggesting the contested
7
Appeal 2017-001888
Application 14/072,933
limitation of claim 1. That is, we find combining Nurmi’s teaching of
determining the handedness of a user based the position and orientation of a
stylus with respect to an object (FF 1—2) with Mihara’s determining the
position and orientation of an object relative to the position and orientation
of a user’s head (FF 3), and further with Vesely’s teaching of stylus-
sensitive 3D objects (FF 4), to an ordinarily skilled artisan, is simply a
combination of familiar prior art practices or acts (as taught or suggested by
the cited combination of references) that would have realized a predictable
result. The skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420—21 (2007).
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and independent claims 19 and 23, which are not
separately argued and falling therewith (App. Br. 8), as well as claims 3, 4,
6—8, 11, 15, 16, 20-22, 24, 25, and 28 respectively depending therefrom,
over Nurmi, Mihara, and Vesely.
Appellants add that Nurmi, Mihara, and Vesely fail to disclose the
further contested limitations of dependent claims 2 and 14 (App. Br. 9—10).
However, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that the combined
references teach and suggest the contested limitations (Ans. 7—9).
Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings, which we incorporate herein
by reference.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in also
rejecting claims 2 and 14 over Nurmi, Mihara, and Vesely. Appellants do
not provide separate arguments for claims 5, 12, 13, 17, 22, 26, 27, and 29.
On this record, we also affirm the rejections of claims 5 and 29 over Nurmi,
Mihara, and Vesely, in further view of Kawamoto; of claims 17, 22, and 26
8
Appeal 2017-001888
Application 14/072,933
over Nurmi, Mihara, and Vesely, in further view of Mese; and of claims 12,
13, and 27 over Nurmi, Mihara, and Vesely, in further view of Hinckley.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8, 11—17, and 19—29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
9