Ex Parte Wood et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 9, 201813541477 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/541,477 07/03/2012 Christopher William WOOD 401481US111CONT TRACK I 1045 95866 7590 02/13/2018 Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P.L. 4800 N. Federal Highway, Suite B306 Boca Raton, EL 33431 EXAMINER KHAN, USMAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/13/2018 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): ptoboc a @ fggbb .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM WOOD and JONAS OVE ARBSJO Appeal 2016-001344 Application 13/541,4771 Technology Center 2600 Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Technology The application relates to a camera with a touch screen. Spec. Abstract. Illustrative Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is BlackBerry Limited, Research In Motion TAT AB. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-001344 Application 13/541,477 1. A camera device, comprising: a sensor for providing an electronic signal corresponding to an image; a touch screen having a region for displaying the image and receiving single touch input, the region having at least one subregion; and a processor enabled to: display the image in the region; execute a shutter command to store the image in a memory when the single touch input is received in the region but not in the at least one subregion when the at least one subregion contains a graphical control, the graphical control for controlling the camera device, the graphical control including a focal control area and, when the single touch input is received in the at least one subregion containing the graphical control, the shutter command is prevented from being executed; change displaying of the graphical control; and, in response, dynamically change a position of the at least one subregion within the region. Rejection Claims 1—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Finkelstein et al. (US 2009/0033786 Al; Feb. 5, 2009), Higashino (US 2007/0018069 Al; Jan. 25, 2007), and Hyodo et al. (US 7,034,881 Bl; Apr. 25, 2006). Final Act. 3. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Finkelstein, Higashino, and Hyodo teaches or suggests “execute a shutter command to store the image in a memory when the single touch input is received in the 2 Appeal 2016-001344 Application 13/541,477 region but not in the at least one subregion” and “when the single touch input is received in the at least one subregion containing the graphical control, the shutter command is prevented from being executed,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites a camera device comprising “a touch screen having a region for displaying the image and receiving single touch input.” Within that region is “at least one subregion” that includes “a focal control area.” “[W]hen the single touch input is received in the at least one subregion [e.g., to control the focus] . . . , the shutter command is prevented from being executed.” On the other hand, the camera device is enabled to “execute a shutter command to store the image in a memory when the single touch input is received in the region but not in the at least one subregion.” Thus, touching the subregion once does not take a picture, whereas touching the region outside the subregion does take a picture. Moreover, the camera device is enabled to “dynamically change a position of the at least one subregion within the region.” Independent claims 15 and 22 contain commensurate limitations. Finkelstein “discloses that a user may tap the touch screen a first time to set the focal point and then a second time to take the picture, for example anywhere on the touchscreen, including the focal point area, which is the OPPOSITE of the presently claimed subject matter.” App. Br. 8—9 (citing Finkelstein 168); Ans. 3. Higashino discloses “a focal control area which is moveable on a touch screen,” but “to acquire a photo in Higashino, a conventional shutter 3 Appeal 2016-001344 Application 13/541,477 button (i.e. an actual physical button) of a camera is manipulated.” App. Br. 9 (citing Higashino Figs. 4—5). The Examiner finds: Finkelstein et al. in view of Higashino fail to clearly teach the idea of when the single touch input is received in the at least one subregion containing the graphical control, the shutter command is prevented from being executed (Note: the examiner may broadly still consider Higashino as reading this limitation since when the touch input is received in the AF frame in at least figure 5 of Higashino there is no shutter command processed . . .). Final Act. 4. Thus, the Examiner finds Higashino’s disclosure of a physical shutter button “teach[es] the idea of touching the focus area does not trigger the shutter command.” Ans. 4 (citing Higashino Figs. 4—5,173). “Note the primary reference [Finkelstein] already teaches tapping on the screen to function the shutter command. When Higashino is combined with Fink[el] stein the shutter command will be due to the area outside of the focus window being tapped.” Id. (citing Final Act. 4). We do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of Finkelstein and Higashino teaches “the shutter command will be due to the area outside of the focus window being tapped.” Ans. 4. The Examiner has not explained sufficiently how either Finkelstein or Higashino teaches a difference in shutter behavior depending on whether a tap is inside or outside the focus window. Instead, these two references teach (A) tapping anywhere activates the shutter command (as in Finkelstein) or (B) tapping anywhere does not activate the shutter command (as in Higashino). The Examiner then relies on Hyodo “to clarify” how the prior art teaches a subregion that does not execute a shutter command when tapped. Final Act. 4. 4 Appeal 2016-001344 Application 13/541,477 [Hyodo’s] figures 2, 7, 9, 11 - 13, and 17 show the idea of when the single touch input is received in the at least one subregion containing the graphical control, the shutter command is prevented from being executed; wherein the subregion can be considered any area other then [sic] the area of item 20. Ans. 4—5 (emphasis added); Final Act. 5. Appellants argue Hyodo teaches “when a single touch occurs once anywhere on the touchscreen, that area is designated as a principal subject [i.e., focus area]” but “to store a picture, a physical release button is touched or the touchscreen is ‘touched twice in rapid succession (double-clicked).’” App. Br. 10 (quoting Hyodo 8:14—16) (emphasis added). Thus, “there is no distinction between regions with regards to touch input that leads to a photo being acquired.” Id. The Examiner has not sufficiently addressed Appellants’ arguments. In particular, the Examiner has not addressed Appellants’ point that item 20 in Hyodo may be a physical button. Figure 2 of Hyodo is reproduced below. 5 Appeal 2016-001344 Application 13/541,477 “FIG. 2 shows the electronic camera 1” in which “a touch panel 12 with light permeability is provided over the display part 10” and a “variety of buttons are provided at the right and left edges of the display part 10,” including “a release (execution) button 20.” Hyodo 5:21—27. In Figure 2, “touch panel 12” is labeled separately from “button 20.” The Examiner has not explained whether button 20 is a physical button or is a part of touch panel 12. If button 20 was a physical button, then what the Examiner has identified as a “subregion” (i.e., any area other than button 20) would not teach or suggest a sub-region of the touch screen because it would instead be the entire touch screen. Moreover, even if button 20 were part of the touch screen, the Examiner has not explained how the limitation “dynamically change a position of the at least one subregion within the region” would be met given the Examiner’s finding that “the subregion can be considered any area other then [sic] the area of item 20.” Ans. 5. It is unclear how the entire image other than button 20 could have its position changed. The Examiner relies on Higashino for this limitation, and as discussed above, Higashino teaches moving a focus area within a displayed image, but Higashino—like Hyodo—does not teach moving an entire displayed area other than a shutter/release button. Thus, it is not clear how the Examiner is combining the different teachings of the different prior art references. As the Supreme Court has said, “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). 6 Appeal 2016-001344 Application 13/541,477 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,15, and 22, and their dependent claims 2—14, 16—21, and 23—25. DECISION For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—25. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation