Ex Parte Walline et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2017

12711509 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 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.
12/711,509 02/24/2010 Erin K. Walline DC-17870 1893
33438 7590 02/07/2017
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
EXAMINER
MERKOULOVA, OLGA VLADIMIROVNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2017 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):
tmunoz @ tcchlaw. com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIN K WALLINE and ROBERT C. NERHOOD II
Appeal 2016-002625
Application 12/711,509 1
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Dell Products L.P. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002625
Application 12/711,509
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to touch pad enablement in an
information handling system. Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal (disputed limitation emphasized):
1. An information handling system comprising:
a housing;
plural components disposed in the housing, the components
operable to process information;
a display interfaced with the components and operable to present
the information as visual images;
an integrated pointing device interfaced with the components and
operable to accept end user inputs to move a cursor displayed on the
display, the integrated pointing device having an enabled state in
which end user inputs move the cursor and a disabled state in which
end user inputs do not move the cursor; and
an enablement module interfaced with the integrated pointing
device and operable to transition the integrated pointing device from
a disabled state to an enabled state in response to predetermined user
inputs made at the integrated pointing device when the integrated
pointing device is in a disabled state, the predetermined user inputs
comprising inputs indicative of an intended end user input to the
integrated pointing device and differentiated from an inadvertent end
user input, the enablement module forwarding the predetermined user
inputs to move the cursor.
App. Br. 7 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTION
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Westerman et al. (US 2008/0036743 Al, pub. Feb. 14,
2008) (“Westerman”) in view of Oh et al. (US 6,266,050 Bl, iss. July 24,
2001) (“Oh”). Final Act. ^U12.
2
Appeal 2016-002625
Application 12/711,509
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Westerman and Oh
teach the limitations of claims 1—20 because:
Applicants’ claimed invention relates to a touchpad that accepts inputs
from a user when the touchpad is disabled by discerning that the user is
attempting to make an input through the touchpad for an application.
The Examiner relies on Oh as disclosing this element, however, Oh
discloses that a defined input, such as a circle, turns on the disabled
touchpad. Oh ignores inputs at the touchpad except for the defined
input. In contrast, Applicants’ claimed invention advances the art by
accepting intended inputs while ignoring unintended inputs so that the
user does not have to memorize or know a defined input that turns on
the touchpad.
App. Br. 3.
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue Westerman and Oh do not teach
the disputed limitation “an enablement module . . . , the enablement module
forwarding the predetermined user inputs to move the cursor.'1'’ App. Br. 3.
According to Appellants, “[t]he end user of Oh inputs the closed curve to
turn on the device, not to see the cursor move in a closed curve” and “[i]n
contrast, Claim 1 recites that the predetermined inputs are forwarded to
move the cursor.” Id. at 4. Appellants further argue “Oh simply looks for a
closed curve pattern meant as a command to the touchpad, not as a
command to move a cursor.” Id.
The Examiner finds the claim language sets forth “movement of the
cursor is a mere consequence of the enablement of the input device” and
“does not specify any cursor movement within a predetermined user input.”
3
Appeal 2016-002625
Application 12/711,509
Ans. 3. Applying this interpretation, the Examiner finds Oh teaches
enablement by the closed curve, and then a user can move the cursor. Id. at
4 (citing Oh Fig. 3, Steps SI6, SI8; col 4,11. 66—67 through col. 5,11. 1—6).
The Examiner additionally finds Appellants’ Specification also does not
show cursor or cursor movement within a predetermined input. Id. 3^4
(citing Spec. 119; Figs. 2, 3).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. In particular, Appellants do not present
sufficient persuasive arguments that the claim terms should be limited to
exclude the teaching of Westerman and Oh and present no persuasive
argument that the Examiner’s findings and claim interpretations are
unreasonable or overbroad. Claim terms in a patent application are given the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
dependent claims 2—9 as these claims are not argued separately.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claim 10, Appellants argue Westerman and Oh do not
teach the claim limitation:
analyzing the predetermined inputs to differentiate intended inputs by
an end user from inadvertent inputs by the end user, the analyzing
including a comparison of the predetermined movements with
predetermined parameters for directionality, speed, acceleration and
repetition patterns.
App. Br. 4-5.
4
Appeal 2016-002625
Application 12/711,509
In particular, Appellants argue Oh looks for one specific input (a
closed curve) and does not teach an “analysis is done based upon
directionality, speed, acceleration and repetition.” Id. 5.
The Examiner finds the combination of Westerman and Oh, rather
than Oh alone, teaches this limitation because Oh selects a closed curve as
one possible predetermined input and Westerman teaches analysis of
directionality, repetition, speed, and acceleration inputs. Ans. 4—5 (citing Oh
col. 6,11. 31—44; Fig. 3; Westerman |106; Fig. 1).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. Moreover, Appellants argue the references
individually whereas the rejection is based on the combination of the
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)(“[0]ne cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references” (citations omitted));
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 10, and
dependent claims 11—18 as these claims are not argued separately.
Regarding independent claim 19, Appellants argue Westerman and
Oh do not teach the limitation:
the enablement module differentiating intended and inadvertent inputs
by comparing detected user inputs with inputs expected from the end
user in response to a lack of cursor movement including at least inputs
to move the cursor in a manner visually identifiable by the end user.
5
Appeal 2016-002625
Application 12/711,509
App. Br. 5—6
In particular, Appellants argue Oh does not teach the limitation
including at least inputs to move the cursor in a manner visually identifiable
by the end user because “[t]he user of Oh must put in a specific command
sequence to enable the touch pad” and “[cjlaim 19 provides enablement of
the touch pad because the user has made inputs that the user expected to see
without success.” Id. at 6. Reply 1—2.
The Examiner finds “unless the device is enabled no movement of a
cursor can take place” and this is consistent with Appellants’ Specification.
Ans. 5—6 (citing Spec. Figs. 2, 3). The Examiner finds, after enablement of
the pointing device, the movement of the cursor occurs. Id. at 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. In particular, Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim as broadly, but reasonably
interpreted. In re Crish, 393 F.3d at 1256.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 19, and
dependent claim 20 as this claim is not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal 2016-002625
Application 12/711,509
AFFIRMED
7