Ex Parte Westerman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2017

12238342 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 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.
12/238,342 09/25/2008 Wayne Carl WESTERMAN 106842017901 (P6127US2) 1456
69753 7590 02/22/2017
APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
EXAMINER
CRAWLEY, KEITH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2017 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):
EOfficeL A @ mofo. com
PatentDocket @ mofo. com
pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE CARL WESTERMAN
Appeal 2016-002503
Application 12/238,342
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1—7, 10, 14—18, 21, and 25—30. Claims 8, 9, 11—13, 19, 20, and 22—
24 are objected to as being allowable if rewritten in independent form to
include all the limitations of the intermediary claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies that Apple Inc. is the real party in interest. (App. Br.
2).
Appeal 2016-002503
Application 12/238,342
The claims are directed to motion component dominance factors for
motion locking of touch sensor data. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for processing touch images using separable
control, comprising:
computing a scale_dominance_ratio (SDR) value and a
rotate_dominance_ratio (RDR) value as a function of an identity
of one or more fingers detected as contacts on a touch sensor
panel, the SDR and RDR values representing dominance values
of a scaling component and a rotational component, respectively,
of motion associated with the contacts;
utilizing the SDR and RDR values to determine a motion
component to lock onto when performing gesture identification.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Westerman et al. US 2005/0104867 A1 May 19, 2005
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—5, 10, 14—16, 21, and 25—30 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Westerman.
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Westerman.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1,14, and 25—28, Appellant does
not set forth separate arguments for patentability. (App. Br. 5—6). We select
2
Appeal 2016-002503
Application 12/238,342
independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will
address Appellant’s arguments thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant contends “Westerman’s teaching of motion component
velocity is not the same as the claimed SDR and RDR ratios (dimensionless
values) that are applied to motion components.” (App. Br. 6). Appellant
argues that the claimed SDR and RDR values can be used to apply weights
to various motion components, as described in paragraph 51 of the
Specification. Appellant further contends “the SDR and RDR values are not
motion components, and are separate and distinct from motion components;
rather, they are dimensionless values that can be used to apply weights to the
motion components.” (App. Br. 6). Appellant also contends that the
equations 76 and 77 of the Westerman reference representing down scaled
components velocities cannot be equated with the dimensionless unit lists
SDR and RDR ratios. (App. Br. 6—7). Appellant provides no further details
regarding this general argument.
The Examiner maintains that the ratios in the equations 76 and 77 of
the Westerman reference are dimensionless ratios. (Ans. 13). We agree
with the Examiner that Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error and
that the intended use of applying weights has not been expressly recited in
the language of independent claim 1. As a result, Appellant’s arguments do
not show error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation.
Appellant further contends “Westerman's Hssneedfnl/dominantspeed
and Hrsneedfnl/dominantsveed velocity values are not computed or
established as a function of an identity of one or more fingers.” (App. Br. 7;
see generally Reply Br. 4—5). Additionally, Appellant argues:
these velocity values (and thus the ratios) in Westerman are not
computed as a function of the identity of one or more fingers
3
Appeal 2016-002503
Application 12/238,342
detected as contacts. For example, the average scaling speed
does not care at all about what fingers are doing the scaling, it
only cares about the speed of the fingers. The same can be said
for the average rotational speed and the dominant component
speed. The identity of the fingers does not matter.
(App. Br. 7).
We note claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking
into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Examiner further relies upon the Westerman reference at para.
244—250 and Figure 35 to disclose finger identity used in determination of
the ratios and as a result are a function of an identity of one or more fingers
detected as contacts on a touch sensor panel. (Ans. 15). We agree with the
Examiner that the Westerman reference discloses identifying one or more
fmgers/thumb and the use of that information in the computations which
ultimately are used to determine the relied upon ratios. As a result, we agree
with the Examiner that the Westerman reference computes the ratios as a
function of the identity of one or more fingers detected as contacts.
Furthermore, we find the language of independent claim 1 does not further
detail the function or the specific identity of the function with respect to the
computation. Consequently, Appellant’s general reliance upon the claim
language does not show error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation.
Additionally, we find the Hvs[n] and Hvr[n] values that are used in the
equations 76 and 77 are based on the innermost and outermost fingers
(thumb and pinky). (Westerman 1250). Consequently, we find Appellant’s
argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation.
4
Appeal 2016-002503
Application 12/238,342
Because Appellant has argued the claims together, we group
independent claims 14 and 25—28, and dependent claims 2—5, 10, 15, 16, 21,
29, and 30 not separately argued, as falling with representative independent
claim 1.
Dependent claims 8, 9, 11—13, 19, 20, and 22—24
Regarding dependent claims 8, 9, 11—13, 19, 20, and 22—24, Appellant
relies upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 1
and 14. (App. Br. 9—10). We note, however, that the Examiner has not
rejected these claims, but has objected to them and indicated they would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the
intervening dependent claims.
Obviousness
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18
With respect to claims 6, 7, 17, and 18, Appellant does not set forth
separate arguments for patentability and relies upon the arguments advanced
with respect to independent claims 1 and 14. (App. Br. 9). Asa result,
Appellant has not identified error in the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness, and we sustain the obviousness rejection for similar reasons
addressed above.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—5, 10, 14—16, 21, and
25—30 based upon anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and we sustain the
rejections of claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 based upon obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Appeal 2016-002503
Application 12/238,342
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1-7, 10, 14—18, 21, and 25—30.
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
6