Ex Parte Walline et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

12634111 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/634, 111 12/09/2009 Erin K. Walline
33438 7590 08/25/2016
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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.
DC-17420 6958
EXAMINER
SIMPSON, LIXI CHOW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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. W ALLINE and ROBERT C. NERHOOD II
Appeal2015-001870
Application 12/634, 111
Technology Center 2600
Before AMBER L. HAGY, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-14, and 16-18, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Claims 3, 9, and 15 have been
cancelled. (Claims App'x. 2-5). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-001870
Application 12/634, 111
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a system for interpretation of
gesture on a non-all-points-addressable multi-touch input device having
integrated buttons. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations
in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for interpretation of gesture on a multitouch
input device comprising:
monitoring input actions on the multi-touch input device,
the multi-touch input device comprising a left button and a right
button;
determining whether a finger is resting on a certain button
area of the multi-touch input device, the certain button area
comprising an area along a bottom portion of the multi-touch
input device and an area corresponding to at least one of the left
button and the right button;
determining whether the resting finger has rested while not
being actuated for a predefined period of time;
placing the multi-touch input device in a single finger
mode of operation based upon the determination; and,
exiting the single finger mode of operation when the
certain button is actuated; and wherein
the multi-touch input device is configured to identifY the
certain button area as the left button for a primary right hand
button orientation and as the right button for a primary left hand
button orientation.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Westerman et al.
(US 8,294,047 B2; issued Oct. 23, 2012) ("Westerman"), Woolley et al. (US
2
Appeal2015-001870
Application 12/634, 111
2010/0328261 Al; published Dec. 30, 2010) ("Woolley"), and Mese et al.
(US 2006/0038774 Al; published Feb. 23, 2006) ("Mese").
ANALYSIS
After considering each of Appellants' arguments, we agree with the
Examiner. We refer to and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
as set forth in the Examiner's Answer and in the action from which this
appeal was taken. (Ans. 2-10; Final Act. 2-9). Our discussions here will be
limited to the following points of emphasis.
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Westerman, Woolley, and Mese teaches or suggests "the certain button area
comprising an area along a bottom portion of the multi-touch input device
and an area corresponding to at least one of the left button and the right
button," as recited by independent claims 1, 7, and 13?
Appellants argue
while Westerman discloses a thumb resting zone along the
lower portion of a panel, there is no disclosure or suggestion
within Westerman of a certain button area comprising an area
along a bottom portion of the multi-touch input device and an
area corresponding to at least one of the left button and the right
button[.]
(Br. 4).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner relies
on Woolley, not Westerman, to teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
(Final Act. 3, citing Woolley Fig. 3, i-f 44; Ans. 7). Accordingly, Appellants'
arguments do not persuasively address the Examiner's rejection.
3
Appeal2015-001870
Application 12/634, 111
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Westerman, Woolley, and Mese teaches or suggests "the multi-touch input
device is configured to identify the certain button area as the left button for a
primary right hand button orientation and as the right button for a primary
left hand button orientation," as recited by independent claims 1, 7, and 13?
Appellants argue "the examiner sets forth that this limitation is
regarded as an intended use." (Br. 4). According to Appellants, "[t]his
element is not an intended use, but rather a structural and functional
limitation of the claim." (Id.) Appellants contend "neither Westerman nor
Woolley, taken alone or in combination, disclose identifying the certain
button area corresponding to the left button for a primary right hand button
orientation and the right button for a primary left hand button orientation[.]"
(Id., emphasis omitted)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants do not
identify, nor do we discern, where the examiner set forth that the disputed
limitation was an intended use. Indeed, Appellants' arguments appear to be
based upon a prior position taken by the Examiner and not the final action
from which this appeal is taken. As noted by the Examiner, the disputed
limitation is not regarded as intended use in the Final Office Action. (Ans.
9). Further, the Examiner relies on Mese, not Woolley or Westerman, to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. (Final Act. 4, citing Mese Fig. 3,
i-fi-131-33; Ans. 8-10). Accordingly, Appellants' arguments do not
persuasively address the Examiner's rejection.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, and 13, and dependent claims 2, 4--6, 8, 10-12, 14,
and 16-18, which were not separately argued.
4
Appeal2015-001870
Application 12/634, 111
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--8,
10-14, and 16-18 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5