Ex Parte Wright et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

13569048 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/569,048 08/07/2012
60909 7590 05/29/2018
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
198 CHAMPION COURT
SAN JOSE, CA 95134-1709
David G. Wright
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.
CD09033CIP1 1055
EXAMINER
PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2018 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):
patents@cypress.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID G. WRIGHT, RYAN SEGUINE,
STEVE KOLOKOWSKY,
and DAVID YOUNG 1
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cypress
Semiconductor Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5-15, and 17-21. Appellants have cancelled claims 2, 4, and 16.
App. Br. 20, 21, 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Representative Claims
Representative claims 1, 8, and 15 under appeal read as follows
( emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A system comprising:
[A.] a sensor configured to detect user inputs; and
[B.] a processor configured to:
[i.] receive a detected first user input from the sensor, the first
user input comprising a gesture;
[ii.] determine whether the gesture has an associated first
command;
[iii.] if the gesture does not have an associated first command,
provide an interface with one or more available
commands;
[iv.] if the gesture has an associated first command, execute the
associated first command;
[ v.] receive a detected second user input, the second user input
comprising an indication that the associated first
command is incorrect;
[vi.] in response to the second user input, undo the first
command associated with the gesture by reversing the
execution of the first command to revert the system
back to a state prior to the first command being
executed;
[vii.] receive a detected third user input from the sensor, the
third user input indicative of a second command; and
[viii.] assign the second command to the gesture based on the
third user input.
2
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
8. A system comprising:
[A.] a sensing device configured to determine one or more
characteristics of at least one of a plurality of user inputs, the at
least one of the plurality of user inputs comprising a gesture;
and
[B.] a processor configured to:
[i.] receive the determined one or more characteristics;
[ii.] determine whether the determined one or more
characte 1 istics are associated with one of a plurality of
known commands;
[iii.] when the determined one or more characteristics are not
associated with one of a plurality of known commands,
identify at least one of the plurality of known commands
to be associated with the at least one of the plurality of
user inputs based on the determined one or more
characteristics of the gesture,
wherein to identify the at least one of the plurality of
known commands, the processor is configured to
determine whether the determined one or more
characteristics of the gesture are within a defined
tolerance of allowed characteristics of the at least
one of the plurality of known commands; and
[iv.] assign the at least one of the plurality of known commands
to the at least one of the plurality of user inputs.
3
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
15. A method, comprising:
[A.] receiving a first user input detected by a sensor;
[B.] identifying one or more characteristics of the received first user
input;
[C.] determining, by a processor if the one or more characteristics
matches a characteristic of a known gesture in a gesture library,
the gesture library comprising a plurality of known gestures and
one or more characteristics that identify each of the plurality of
known gestures; and
[D.] if the one or more characteristics do not match a characteristic of
a known gesture,
[ i.] generating a new gesture based on the one or more
characteristics of the first user input,
[ii.] receiving a second user input, the second user input
indicating a command, and
[iii.] associating the command indicated by the second user
input with the new gesture associated with the first user
input by linking an entry in the gesture library
corresponding to the new gesture with an entry in a
command library associated with the command,
wherein the command library is separate from the
gesture library.
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Westerman et al.
(US 2008/0036743 Al; pub. Feb. 14, 2008), Rigazio et al. (US
2009/0002218 Al; pub. Jan. 1, 2009), and Nishihara et al. (US
2009/0103780 Al; pub. Apr. 23, 2009). 2
2 We select claim 1 as representative. Appellants do not argue separate
patentability for claims 3, 5-7, and 21. Except for our ultimate decision, we
do not discuss claims 3, 5-7, and 21 further herein.
4
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
The Examiner rejected claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable the combination of Westerman, Nishihara, and Do et al. (US
2010/0013676 Al; pub. Jan. 21, 2010). 3
The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable the combination of Westerman and Marvit et al. (US
2005/0210417 Al; pub. Sept. 22, 2005). 4
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 15 as being
obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
points.
3 We select claim 8 as representative. Appellants do not argue separate
patentability for claims 9-14. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not
discuss claims 9-14 further herein.
4 We select claim 15 as representative. Appellants do not argue separate
patentability for claims 17-20. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not
discuss claims 17-20 further herein.
5
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
A.
Appellants raise the following arguments in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
1.
[T]he undo command referenced by Westerman pertains not to
the "undo" of a previous command input, but to repeat the same
command when flipping through pages. (Westerman, paragraph
[0110].)
App. Br. 8 ( emphasis added).
[W]hile paragraph [0110] of Westerman does describe an undo
command in a specific example of a type of command that could
be detected, the undo command described by Westerman does
not "undo" a prior, executed command.
App. Br. 11 ( emphasis added).
Westerman [paragraph 0110] does not describe that an undo
command undoes a prior action associated with a gesture, as
recited by claim 1. Instead, an undo command in Westerman
simply undoes "work," which would apply to typing on a
keyboard, clicking on an option with a mouse, drawing on a
scratchpad with a mouse, etc. It appears as though the Examiner
is incorrectly relying on the doctrine of inherency to
demonstrate that Westerman teaches or suggests "receive a
detected second user input, the second user input comprising an
indication that the associated first command is incorrect (where
the first command is associated with a gesture)" and "in response
to the second user input, undo the first command associated with
the gesture by reversing the execution of the first command to
revert the system back to a state prior to the first command being
executed," as recited by claim 1.
App. Br. 12 ( emphasis added).
6
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
The Examiner presents the following response to Appellants' above
arguments.
Applicant argues on page 8 that Westerman's paragraph
110 does not teach an undo command but rather a way of
continuing/repeating a command. The command that is
discussed as being repeatable, however, is a traditional "undo"
command and it seems stretched to read otherwise. Further,
paragraphs 163 and 17 4 explicitly discuss that a traditional
"undo" command can be mapped to a gesture event, and Fig. 29E
demonstrates an interface for programming particular
chords/ gesture events to commands such as editing operations
including "undo."
Ans 13-14 ( emphasis added).
First, we construe the critical term "undo" of claim 1. Reviewing the
Specification, we do not find the Appellants provide their own definition for
the term "undo." Therefore, we tum to THE MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER
DICTIONARY (Microsoft Press 1991), which states the term "undo" means:
To reverse the last action- for example, to undo a deletion, thus
restoring the text to a document. Many application programs
enable the user both to undo an action and to "undo" an undo.
Id. at 356. We find this dictionary definition is consistent with Appellants'
use of the term "undo" in the Specification.
Second, based on this dictionary definition of "undo," we conclude
the Examiner is correct in concluding that the argued limitations of claim 1
would have been obvious to an artisan. Contrary to Appellants' argument,
given the ordinary meaning of "undo," we conclude any Examiner reliance
on inherency or obviousness is well founded to show that a prior action
associated with a gesture can be "undone." For example, Westerman
teaches "commands and gesture events that are linked to the commands,"
including gestures for editing commands such as "cut" and "paste," in
7
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
addition to an "undo" command. Westerman ,r 163. "Cut" and "paste" are
examples of prior work that can be "undone," regardless of whether a
command to cut or paste comes from a button, a keyboard, or a gesture. See
id. ,r,r 110, 163, 174 (cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 13-15)).
2.
Westerman states "[a] switching event can refer to an event that
resets the operation or initiates a chord change." (Westerman,
paragraph [0111].) The Office action appears to interpret
"resets the operation" to mean that a previous action associated
with a first gesture is undone by the switching event. . . . A
switching event does not undo a prior action, as the Office action
contends.
App. Br. 9-10 (emphasis added).
Although the Examiner's rejection cites to Westerman paragraph 111
for support, our review of the rejection does not find the "resets the
operation" interpretation argued by Appellants. Rather, as we discuss above,
Westerman explicitly teaches using an "undo" command which as artisan
would understand as undoing a prior incorrect command.
B.
In rejecting claim 8, the Examiner finds:
Regarding claim 8, Westerman teaches a system
compnsmg:
a processor ... configured to:
determine whether the determined one or more
characteristics are associated with one of a plurality of known
commands (see Fig. 1 blocks 22 and 24).
Final Act. 7.
8
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
Appellants raise the following arguments in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Westerman describes loading the gesture events for commands
that are already associated with a gesture, rather than commands
that are not yet associated with a gesture but that are going to be
associated with the gesture as a result of the assigning.
Accordingly, Westerman cannot be properly interpreted as
teaching "identify at least one of the plurality of known
commands to be associated with the at least one of the plurality
of user inputs," as claimed.
Do is directed to presence recognition control of electronic
devices using a multi-touch device. (Do, Abstract.) Nishihara is
directed to hand-gesture recognition. (Nishihara, Abstract.)
Appellant respectfully submits that neither Do nor Nishihara can
cure the deficiencies of Westerman and neither teaches or
suggests identifying at least one of the plurality of known
commands to be associated with the at least one of the plurality
of user inputs based on the determined one or more
characteristics of the gesture, as claimed.
App. Br. 15 (emphasis added).
In response to Appellants' above argument, at pages 19-20 of the
Answer, the Examiner additionally cites to Westerman paragraphs 178-1805
and Figures 29-32 to support the rejection. The Examiner also presents the
following new findings.
Applicant's interpretation of the reference suggests that
Westerman just allows looking up gesture events and the
commands that are associated with said gesture events but does
not allow programming of new correlations. Westerman Figs.
29-32 and paragraphs 178-180 show that Westerman definitely
5 "[T]he user may assign commands to gesture events by moving the
commands over a gesture. For example, the user can select and drag a
particular command and drop[] it over the desired gesture event. Thereafter,
the command can be tied to that gesture event for future operations."
Westerman, 178.
9
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
teaches assigning commands to gesture events inputted by the
user.
Ans. 19.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants expand the initial argument presented
in the Appeal Brief.
The cited portion [of Westerman paragraph 178] does not,
however, teach or suggest "when the determined one or more
characteristics are not associated with one of a plurality of known
commands, identify at least one of the plurality of known
commands to be associated with the at least one of the plurality
of user inputs based on the determined one or more
characteristics of the gesture," as recited by claim 8.
Reply Br. 12; see also App. Br. 15.
This expanded argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner did not cite
Westerman for the "when the determined one or more characteristics are not
associated" limitation. Rather, the Examiner cited Do. Final Act. 8.
Thus, Appellants do not address the actual reasoning of the
Examiner's rejection. Instead, Appellants attack the reference singly for
lacking a teaching that the Examiner relied on a combination of references to
show. It is well-established that one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
References must be read, not in isolation, but for what they fairly teach in
combination with the prior art as a whole. Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097.
Additionally, Appellants' above Appeal Brief arguments dismiss the
Do reference. However, Appellants overlook that Do at paragraph 69 and
Figure 5A (cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 8)) teaches a process
paralleling the entire "when the determined one or more characteristics are
10
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
not associated ... " limitation clause of claim 8. Do teaches identifying
characteristics, then determining if a gesture "exactly match[ es]" the
characteristics or matches "within some predetermined tolerance." In the
event of no match, Do looks for similar characteristics previously matched
to one or more gestures, and prompts the user with a selection list. Do ,r 69.
Contrary to Appellants' argument, we conclude that Do (in
combination with Westerman) more than sufficiently suggests the argued
limitation.
C.
Appellants raise the following arguments in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Marvit describes that raw motion data of received user input is
processed and stored as a gesture in a gesture database. (Marvit,
Paragraph [0147].) Once the gesture is stored, Marvit teaches
that function mapping information for the gesture is received
from the user. The function mapping information includes
functions, operations[,] or tasks of the device that the user desires
the user-created gesture to command, and is stored in a function
database or a gesture mapping database. (Marvit, Paragraph
[0148].) Marvit, however, does not teach or suggest linking an
entry in the gesture library corresponding to the new gesture
with an entry in a command library associated with the
command, wherein the command library is separate from the
gesture library, as claimed . ... Marvit does not teach or suggest
that one of either the function database or the gesture mapping
database includes just the command and that an entry in the
function database or the gesture mapping database is linked to an
entry for the gesture in the gesture database. Marvit does not
describe any connection between any of the gesture database, the
function database or the gesture mapping database, and therefore
cannot be properly interpreted as "linking" any entries across the
various databases. Therefore, Marvit does not teach or suggest
this feature of the claims.
11
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
App. Br. 17-18.
In the Final Action at pages 11-12, the Examiner cites to Marvit
paragraphs 147-148 and Figure 21 to support the rejection. In response to
Appellants' above argument, at pages 22-24 of the Answer, the Examiner
additionally cites to Marvit paragraph 137 and Figure 18 to support the
rejection. The Examiner also presents the following new findings.
Clearly in Fig. 18 a function, e.g. "command" database and a
gesture database are stored in memory. Therefore, Marvit does
teach a database that includes 'just the command." Marvit also
teaches in paragraphs 137 and 148 that the function mapping (to
a gesture) information is stored at either the function database or
the gesture (mapping) database. Therefore, the gesture
( mapping) database can store the function mapping and a
separate function database can store "just the command."
Ans. 23-24.
In the Reply Brief at pages 14--15, Appellants repeat word-for-word
the argument presented in the Appeal Brief. This repeated argument is silent
as to the Examiner's findings as to Marvit's paragraph 137, and Figures 18
and 21. We do not find where Appellants dispute the Examiner's new
findings. Therefore, we find Appellants' argument unpersuasive.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-15, and
17-21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1, 3, 5-15, and 17-21 are not patentable.
12
Appeal 2017-011780
Application 13/569,048
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-15, and 17-21 are
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
13