Ex Parte VanBlon et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201813897656 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/897,656 05/20/2013 58127 7590 08/30/2018 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Russell Speight V anBlon 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. RPS920130025USNP(710.232) 8112 EXAMINER AZAR!, SEPEHR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2018 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 RUSSELL SPEIGHT V ANBLON, ARNOLD S. WEKSLER, JOHN CARL MESE, and NATHAN J. PETERSON Appeal2018-001847 Application 13/897,656 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Appellants' invention is a method of disabling touch input to an information handling device. The method comprises receiving a first input from a device component indicating positional orientation of the information handling device, and receiving a second input indicating that the information handling device is undergoing movement. Responsive to receiving both of 1 The real party in interest is Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD. Appeal2018-001847 Application 13/897 ,656 the first input and the second input at substantially the same time, the method calls for disabling at least a portion of the touch input surface of the information handling device. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method, comprising: receiving a first input from at least one device component indicating an upright positional orientation of an information handling device; receiving a second input from the at least one device component indicating that the information handling device is undergoing movement; and disabling, based on receiving both of the first input and the second input at substantially the same time, at least a portion of a touch input surface of the information handling device to preclude operational touch input from at least the portion of the touch input surface. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Nymark Westerman Hotelling Hinckley '294 Hinckley '407 US 2009/0153490 Al US 2009/0174679 Al US 2011/0012840 Al US 2012/0154294 Al US 2012/0262407 Al June 18, 2009 July 9, 2009 Jan. 20, 2011 June 21, 2012 Oct.18,2012 Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-3, 7, 10-12, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hinckley '294 and Nymark. Claims 4---6 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hinckley '294, Nymark, and Hotelling. Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hinckley '294, Nymark, and Westerman. 2 Appeal2018-001847 Application 13/897 ,656 Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hinckley '294, Nymark, and Hinckley '407. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June 30, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 11, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 11, 2017) for their respective details. ISSUES 1. Does the combination of Hinckley '294 and Nymark disclose or fairly suggest disabling, based on receiving both of the first input and the second input at substantially the same time, at least a portion of a touch input surface of the information handling device? 2. Does the combination of Hinckley '294, Nymark, and Hinckley '407 disclose or fairly suggest refining disablement of at least a portion of the touch input surface based on the proximity sensor input while the information handling device is upright? PRINCIPLES OF LAW The Examiner's articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). ANALYSIS § 101 REJECTION OF CLAIM 19 Claim 19 recites, inter alia, "a storage device having computer readable program code embodied therewith." The Examiner concluded that claim 19 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter because "machine readable media" can encompass transitory signal transmission. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that because Appellants' Specification uses the word "may" 3 Appeal2018-001847 Application 13/897 ,656 in such contexts as "[ a ]ny combination of one or more non-signal device readable medium(s) may be utilized," the Specification does not explicitly limit the storage medium to a non-transitory medium. Id.; Spec. ,r 35. While the Examiner is correct that the word "may" is treated as permissive, in contrast to the word "shall," we find that "may" here modifies the initial words "any combination." We do not agree with the Examiner that "may" may be fairly read to negate the explicit disclosure of a non- signal device readable medium. Spec. ,r 35. The permissive language used ("may") communicates that the skilled artisan has the choice of any non- signal media. The Specification discloses that "[a]ny combination of non- signal media may be utilized, which may be storage media, which may be any non-signal media, such as "electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device." Spec. ,r 35 (emphasis added). We do not agree that "may" in paragraph 35 allows for the possibility of transitory "signal media." The use of "non- signal medium" specifically excludes that possibility. Because we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred, we do not sustain the Examiner's § 101 rejection of claim 19. § 103 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3, 7, 10-12, 16, AND 19 Appellants contend that Nymark fails to disclose disabling the touch input surface based on receiving both of the first and second inputs at substantially the same time. App. Br. 17. Appellants argue that Nymark "explicitly discloses simultaneously monitoring for the two data types, not simultaneous receipt of the two data types." Id. (emphasis added). 4 Appeal2018-001847 Application 13/897 ,656 We are not persuaded of error by Appellants' argument. We agree with the Examiner's finding that the argument is moot because Hinckley discloses receiving the first input regarding orientation, and the second input regarding device movement. Ans. 15; Hinckley '294, ,r 109. To the extent that Hinckley does not disclose receipt at substantially the same time, we find that Nymark discloses such reception. Ans. 14; Nymark, ,r 41. Appellants further argue that the Examiner failed to provide a properly articulated reason why a person skilled in the art would combine Hinckley '294 and Nymark. App. Br. 17. We agree with the Examiner that, given Hinckley '294's teaching of receiving signals regarding orientation and device movement, the person having ordinary skill would been motivated to modify Hinckley '294 in view ofNymark to "ensure the reception of both movement and orientation signals ... occurring at substantially the same time." Ans. 5. We find that the Examiner's stated reasons to combine the references having a rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 19. We sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19, as we as claims 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, and 16 not separately argued. CLAIMS 4---6, 8, 9, 13-15, 17, AND 18 Appellants do not separately argue these dependent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 4--6 and 13-15 over Hinckley '294, Nymark, and Hotelling, for the reasons given supra with respect to independent claims 1 and 10. We also sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 over Hinckley '294, 5 Appeal2018-001847 Application 13/897 ,656 Nymark, and Westerman, for the reasons given supra with respect to independent claims 1 and 10. CLAIM20 Appellants argue that Hinckley '294 fails to disclose refining disablement of at least a portion of the touch input surface. App. Br. 17. Appellants assert that Hinckley '294 discloses, "refining an indication of a location," not the claimed "refining disablement." Id. We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' argument. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Hinckley '294 discloses determining, based on sensor inputs indicating movement and/ or orientation, that certain touches of the touch input surface are deemed to be inadvertent, and are to be disregarded. Ans. 15-16; Hinckley '294, ,r,r 100-103, 109. As we do not find that the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner's § 103(a) rejection of claim 20 over Hinckley '294, Nymark, and Hinckley '407. CONCLUSIONS 1. The combination of Hinckley '294 and Nymark discloses disabling, based on receiving both of the first input and the second input at substantially the same time, at least a portion of a touch input surface of the information handling device. 2. The combination of Hinckley '294, Nymark, and Hinckley '407 discloses refining disablement of at least a portion of the touch input surface based on the proximity sensor input while the information handling device is upright. 6 Appeal2018-001847 Application 13/897 ,656 The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation