Ex Parte Wong et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201411462679 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YOON KEAN WONG, WILLIAM ROBERT HANSON, and SHAWN R. GETTEMY ____________ Appeal 2012-000035 Application 11/462,679 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000035 Application 11/462,679 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 21-41 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. A method for processing input on an electronic device, the method comprising: providing a circumferential track that is formed by a pair of concentric ellipses which define a circular or arced path on a surface of the electronic device, wherein the circumferential track (i) is provided as part of a contact- sensitive input feature on the surface of the electronic device, and (ii) exists prior to contact being received on the circumferential track that is processed as input; detecting contact from an object that is processed as input, including detecting the object being moved in an arc from an original position to a new position while maintaining contact with the contact-sensitive input feature, the new position being located at any arc length from the original position along the circumferential track; determining an input value based in part on the original position and the new position; and processing the input value. Prior Art Kishi US 5,903,229 May 11, 1999 Narayanaswami US 6,556,222 B1 Apr. 29, 2003 Kanzaki US 2003/0117380 A1 Jun. 26, 2003 Zadesky US 7,046,230 B2 May 16, 2006 Appeal 2012-000035 Application 11/462,679 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 15, 21-29, 33, 34, and 39-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanzaki and Kishi. Claims 8, 10, 13, 16, 30-32, and 36-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanzaki, Kishi, and Zadesky. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanzaki, Kishi, Zadesky, and Narayanaswami. ANALYSIS Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 15, 21-29, 33, 34, and 39- 41 The Examiner finds column 5, lines 50-58 and Figures 2 and 24 of Kishi teach providing a circumferential track formed by a pair of concentric circles. Ans. 6, 13-14. Appellants contend Kishi teaches determining rotational direction of a user input on a panel surface, but does not teach a circumferential track. Br. 8-9. Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with column 5, lines 63-67 of Kishi, which teaches ensuring appropriate operation of making circular strokes by perceiving the display from an indicator. Appellants’ contention is also inconsistent with Figure 24 of Kishi, which shows a “circumferential track that is formed by a pair of concentric ellipses which define a circular or arced path on a surface of the electronic device.” We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 5, 11, 12, 15, 21-29, 33, 34, and 39-41, which fall with claim 1. Appeal 2012-000035 Application 11/462,679 4 Section 103 rejection of claims 8, 10, 13, 16, 30-32, and 36-38 Appellants contend that the Zadesky Provisional Application 60/346,237 teaches a rotating mechanical mechanism, but does not teach a circumferential track part of a contact-sensitive input feature, as required by claim 1. Br. 10. However, the combination of Kanzaki and Kishi teaches the circumferential track as discussed above. Further, Figure 1 of the Zadesky Provisional Application teaches a circumferential track 104. Appellants have not provided persuasive argument or evidence to distinguish the “circumferential track that is formed by a pair of concentric ellipses . . . as part of a contact-sensitive input feature” as recited in claim 1 from the circumferential track formed by the inner and outer circular boundaries of contact sensitive wheel 104 as taught by Zadesky. We sustain the rejection of claims 8, 10, 13, 16, 30-32, and 36-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claim 35 Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 35. We sustain the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2012-000035 Application 11/462,679 5 DECISION The rejection of Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 15, 21-29, 33, 34, and 39-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanzaki and Kishi is affirmed. The rejection of Claims 8, 10, 13, 16, 30-32, and 36-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanzaki, Kishi, and Zadesky is affirmed. The rejection of Claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanzaki, Kishi, Zadesky, and Narayanaswami 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(f). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation