Ex Parte Wong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

12887478 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
12/887,478 09/21/2010 Ling Jun Wong 201002974.01 2581
36738 7590 12/22/2016
ROrTTT7 fr ASSOPTATRS
EXAMINER
750 B STREET EGLOFF, PETER RICHARD
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2016 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
John@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LING JUN WONG
and TRUE XIONG
Appeal 2015-003249
Application 12/887,478
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1 and 4—7. Claims 2, 3, and 8—20 have been cancelled.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Claims 17—20 were cancelled by Appellants in an amendment submitted
after the final rejection and with Appellants’ Appeal Brief on September 29,
2014. See Adv. Act. (dated Oct. 14, 2014) (entering Appellants’ amendment
after the final rejection); 37 C.F.R. § 41.33(b); but cf. Ans. 4—6.
Appeal 2015-003249
Application 12/887,478
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. A system comprising:
a Braille encoder to convert textual portions of a content
to a plurality of Braille codes;
a haptic output controller to convert non-textual portions
of the content to haptic feedback;
a plurality of Braille cells or a Braille wheel to output the
Braille codes and selectively output the haptic feedback with
corresponding Braille codes, and
a position input controller to determine a position of a
user relative to one or more of the plurality of Braille cells with
the position input controller selectively outputting the haptic
feedback representing the non-textual portions of the content
responsive to a determination that the position of the user is
proximate one or more of the Braille cells outputting the
corresponding Braille codes.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 5—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rantala (US 2010/0055651 Al, pub. Mar. 4, 2010) and Ito
(JP 2004-252176A, pub. Sept. 9, 2004).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Rantala, Ito, and Yun (US 8,207,832 B2, iss. June 26, 2012).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 5—7 as unpatentable over Rantala and Ito
The Examiner found that Rantala teaches a system with haptic output
controller and plural Braille cells that tracks user positions relative to content
on screen 210 (but not Braille cells) and outputs the Braille codes and haptic
feedback but does not output haptic feedback for non-textual portions of that
content in response to the determined user position. Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 7.
2
Appeal 2015-003249
Application 12/887,478
The Examiner found that Ito discloses a Braille display device that
includes a position input controller to determine a user position relative to
one or more Braille cells and selectively outputs Braille in response to this
detection. Final Act. 3. The Examiner determined that it would have been
obvious to modify Rantala to output information in response to detecting a
user’s position relative to particular Braille cells, as taught by Ito, to aid in
power reduction in view of Rantala’s teaching of selectively outputting the
textual and non-textual information in response to a user’s position relative
to the content on a screen and Ito’s disclosure of determining a user position
relative to Braille cells. Id. at 3^4.
Appellants argue that Rantala does not output haptic feedback for the
non-textual portions of the content in response to determining the position of
a user proximate to one or more Braille cells or outputting Braille codes for
the corresponding textual portions of the content, as the Examiner admits,
and Ito does not teach any output of haptic feedback for non-textual portions
of content, much less in response to any finger movement. Appeal Br. 3^4.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner agrees that Rantala tracks the user
position with respect to content on the screen but not with respect to Braille
cells themselves, as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 1.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Rantala and Ito teach or suggest the system of claim 1. The Examiner finds
that Rantala does not output haptic feedback for the non-textual portions of
content in response to determining the position of a user proximate to the
one or more Braille cells for that textual content. Final Act. 3; Ans. 7. The
Examiner relies on Ito to teach determination of a user position relative to a
Braille cell(s), but not to teach haptic feedback. Final Act. 3; Ans. 7.
3
Appeal 2015-003249
Application 12/887,478
The Examiner has not established that Rantala or Ito discloses a
system that outputs haptic feedback (tactile stimulations such as vibrations)
for non-textual portions of content when a user’s position is proximate to a
Braille cell(s) outputting the Braille codes for the textual portions of that
content. See Appeal Br. 3—5; Reply Br. 1—2; Spec. 117 (haptic feedback can
include vibrations at different amplitudes, frequencies and pulses, changes in
temperature, air flow, or sound waves). Appellants disclose this system as
providing a means to inform a user that text that is output as Braille on a
Braille reader or Braille wheel corresponds to non-textual information such
as a hyperlink or “save” icon. Spec. 18—19; Appeal Br. 7 (claim 6). As
the system outputs Braille codes for the text associated with a graphical or
other non-textual image or item, the haptic output controller provides haptic
feedback indicating the non-textual aspects of that content, so that the user
understands that the text is associated with a hyperlink or graphical icon,
e.g., a webpage, PDF document, graphical user interface of an application,
and the like. See Spec. 25—21, Figs. 3A, 3B.
The Examiner found that Rantala tracks a user’s position on a screen
but not with respect to Braille cells or a Braille wheel, as claimed. See Ans.
7; Rantala 193. The Examiner relied on Ito to teach Braille cells or wheels.
Ans. 7; Ito, Tflf 24—31, Figs. 1—6. The Examiner has not explained, however,
why a skilled artisan would modify Rantala, which displays Braille cells on
a display of a tablet, personal digital assistant, mobile phone, media device,
or digital assistant (Rantala 1 60) to include Ito’s mechanical Braille cells,
which duplicate that function with mechanical pins, but do not provide any
haptic feedback for any non-textual information that may be associated with
that textual information, as claimed.
4
Appeal 2015-003249
Application 12/887,478
The Examiner’s findings regarding Rantala’s output of Braille codes
and selective output of haptic feedback with the corresponding Braille codes,
as recited in claim 1, are unclear and not supported by a preponderance of
evidence. The Examiner finds that Rantala discloses “a plurality of Braille
cells (screen area divided into blocks with corresponding dots forming
Braille cells — Par. 28) to output the Braille codes and selectively output the
haptic feedback with corresponding Braille codes (Par. 93) (as per claim 1).”
Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). Paragraph 93 of Rantala teaches that haptic
feedback is provided by actuator 220 as a user’s finger scans Braille dots on
a screen to represent each Braille dot. Because Rantala lacks a mechanical
Braille wheel or cells (as in Ito), Rantala provides haptic feedback in the
form of different vibrations that move the entire display 210 to indicate each
raised dot and lower dot of a Braille code. Rantala Tflf 62—63, 70-71, Figs. 2,
4, 5. Rantala does provide additional haptic feedback (other vibrations) to
indicate graphical elements, as the Examiner found. Id. 73—75, 140-148,
Figs. 5, 15; Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner has not established that
Rantala outputs haptic feedback for non-textual data of content based on a
user’s position proximate to Braille cells representing the textual portions of
that data, as recited in claim 1. Nor has the Examiner established that this
feature would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Ito, or Rantala.2
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 5—7.
2 In this regard, Rantala does disclose that haptic feedback is provided when
a user’s touch coincides with a displayed graphic with vibrations associated
with that type of graphic and if the user’s touch remains on a graphical link
or frame, the device provides the full title or textual information for the link
and converts the text to tactile feedback. Rantala Tflf 143—155, Figs. 5, 6, 15.
5
Appeal 2015-003249
Application 12/887,478
Claim 4 as unpatentable over Rantala, Ito, and Yun
The Examiner’s reliance on Yun to teach the features of claim 4 does
not remedy the deficiencies of Rantala and Ito discussed above as to claim 1,
from which claim 4 depends. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
4.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1 and 4—7.
REVERSED
6