Ex Parte Westerman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

11963516 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111963,516 12/21/2007
69753 7590 09/28/2016
APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Wayne Carl Westerman
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.
106842008400 (P4764US1) 1134
EXAMINER
LAM, VINH TANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
EOfficeLA@mofo.com
PatentDocket@mofo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE CARL WESTERMAN and
JOHN GREER ELIAS
Appeal2015-007017
Application 11/963 ,516
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
19 and 21-55. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 20 is
withdrawn.
We affirm.
Appeal2015-007017
Application 11/963,516
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to multitouch data fusion. Abstract.
Claiml, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A touch data fusion system, comprising:
a touch sensing device configured for receiving a touch
input and generating first touch data;
one or more touch data fusion devices configured for
providing secondary data; and
a processor coupled to the touch sensing device and the
one or more touch data fusion devices, the processor capable of
combining both the first touch data and the secondary data to
perform operations on an electronic device,
wherein the secondary data includes device motion data,
and the processor is further capable of processing the first touch
data in accordance with the device motion data.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6, 18-19, 21-25, 31--41, and 51-55 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Rosenberg (US 2006/0241864 Al,
published Oct. 26, 2006). Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 5 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rosenberg and Jones (US 2004/0119699, Al, June 24,
2004). Final Act. 8-10.
Claims 7-9, 17, 26-28, and 42--44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rosenberg and Namba (US 5,884,249, issued
Mar. 16, 1999). Final Act. 11-14.
Claims 10, 29, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rosenberg and Cheung (US 5,736,976, issued Apr. 7,
1998). Final Act. 14--15.
2
Appeal2015-007017
Application 11/963,516
Claims 11, 30, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rosenberg and Shin (US 2011/0199196 Al, published
Aug. 18, 2001). Final Act. 16-17.
Claims 15, 34, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rosenberg and Bathiche (US 2006/0236263 Al,
published Oct. 19, 2006). Final Act. 17-18.
Claims 12, 31, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rosenberg and Wehrenberg (US 2006/0017692 Al,
published Jan. 26, 2006). Final Act. 18-20. Final Act. 18-20.
Claims 13, 14, 32, 33, 48, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rosenberg and Wolfson (US 2008/0191864
Al, published Aug. 14, 2008). Final Act. 20-23.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue collectively the rejection of all claims rejected as
anticipated by Rosenberg (i.e., claims 1--4, 6, 18-19, 21-25, 31--41, and 51-
55). App. Br. 7-8. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 CPR
41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants do not argue the remaining rejections beyond stating that
Jones, Namba, Cheung, Shin, Bathiche, Wehrenberg, and Wolfson do not
cure the deficiencies of Rosenberg. App. Br. 7-12. Accordingly, this appeal
turns on whether Appellants persuasively establish error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 over Rosenberg.
Claim 1 recites "a processor ... capable of combining both the first
touch data and the secondary data to perform operations on an electronic
device, wherein the secondary data includes device motion data, and the
3
Appeal2015-007017
Application 11/963,516
processor is further capable of processing the first touch data in accordance
with the device motion data."
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over
Rosenberg because Rosenberg does not describe combining "touch data"
and "motion data" to perform operations on an electronic device. Id. 8. See
also Reply Br. 2-3.
We are unpersuaded of error.
Rosenberg discloses the following:
In still another embodiment, a source or target electronic device
can be selected from within the ubiquitous computing
environment by pointing the handheld unit as described above
and/ or bringing the handheld unit within a predetermined
proximity as described above and performing an additional
manipulation of the handheld unit (e.g., pressing a button on an
interface of the handheld unit, moving the handheld unit in a
predetermined motion, etc.).
Rosenberg i-f 25. Rosenberg also discloses that "[o]nce a file has been
selected via the user interface, the user can then point the handheld unit 12 at
a desired electronic device and depress the appropriate 'send' button,
thereby causing the selected file to be sent to the desired electronic device."
Id. i-f 71.
In response to Appellants' argument that "the position or proximity of
a pointing device is not the same as the motion of that device" (App. Br. 7),
the Examiner finds that Rosenberg's pointing the handheld device at a
desired electronic device then pressing "send" to cause the sending of a file
amounts to using motion data in combination with touch data to perform an
operation. Ans. 2-3. In other words, the Examiner finds that Rosenberg's
pointing data describes the claimed motion data because it involves moving
the device "from a beginning position to [an] end position" to orient the
4
Appeal2015-007017
Application 11/963,516
device toward the desired electronic device to which the file is to be sent.
Id. (citing Rosenberg i-f 71, Fig. 1 ).
We see no error in the Examiner's analysis.
Appellants' rebuttal to the Examiner's reasoning (Reply Br. 2) is
unpersuasive. Appellants argue that Rosenberg "fails to show that any of the
preliminary movement is converted to device motion data and is thereafter
used." Id. Appellants assert that in the scenario relied on by the Examiner,
"[t]he handheld device must first be pointed at the target for communications
to ensue" and that "[d]evice motion data is irrelevant and not captured as
data." Id.
Appellants' rebuttal arguments are unpersuasive. Initially, we note, as
a matter of claim construction, the term "motion data" is not explicitly
defined in Appellants' Specification. Appellants identify paragraphs 107
and 108 of their Specification as describing the limitation. App. Br. 2. The
Specification describes filtering out "data associated with motion of device."
Spec. i-f 107 (emphasis added). We are thus not persuaded, taking a broad,
but reasonable, interpretation in light of the Specification, by Appellants'
arguments because, in accordance with the Examiner's reasoning (Ans. 2),
the present orientation or location of Rosenberg's handheld device results
from motion (is associated with motion), and therefore, describes motion
data. Appellants have not provided sufficient argument or evidence to
convince us that the clamed "motion data" excludes the location or
orientation data in Rosenberg that results from the "preliminary movement"
or pointing of the handheld device at the target as acknowledged by
Appellants as having taken place. Reply Br. 2. In other words, Rosenberg's
position or orientation data describes the claimed "motion data" inasmuch as
5
Appeal2015-007017
Application 11/963,516
it is based on "motion" having taken place to thereby position or orient the
handheld device.
Our decision with respect to this issue being dispositive of the appeal,
we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject all pending claims.
Although not relied upon in affirming the Examiner's rejection, we
further note Rosenberg describes that performing manipulation of the
handheld device may include "pressing a button on an interface of the
handheld unit" (touch data) and "moving the handheld unit in a
predetermined motion" (motion data). Rosenberg i-f 25. As such we
determine Rosenberg describes combining both touch data and motion data
to perform operations on an electronic device.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19 and 21-55.
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).
AFFIRMED
6