Ex Parte Yuen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13707220 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131707,220 12/06/2012
91230 7590 10/03/2016
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue. 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jenny Yuen
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.
079894.0789 2089
EXAMINER
TRUONG, NGUYEN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENNY YUEN and LUKE ST. CLAIR
Appeal2015-008244
Application 13/707,220
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Qui (US 2010/0109999 Al, published May 6,
2010) and Tan et al. (US 2009/0167692 Al, published July 2, 2009). Final
Act. 2-9.
Appeal2015-008244
Application 13/707,220
Claims 3, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Qui, Tan, and Chiu et al. (US 2010/0328260 Al, published Dec. 30,
2010). Final Act. 9-10.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "providing for input to the computer
system using a trackpad within a keyboard." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below, with the disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
by a computing device, providing for display to a user a
set of keys within a region of a touch-screen user interface, each
key being responsive to a keystroke touch-gesture within an
area of the key;
by the computing device, receiving a pre-defined user
input other than a keystroke touch-gesture within an area of a
key;
by the computing device, in response to the pre=defined
user input, providing within the region of the touch-screen user
interface a trackpad in place of at least a portion of the set of
keys; and
by the computing device, translating the pre-defined user
input to a relative position on a content portion of the touch-
screen user interface, wherein the translation is concurrent
with the provision of the trackpad.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4--10, 12-16, AND 18-20 OVER
QUI AND TAN
The Examiner finds Qui and Tan teach all limitations of claim 1. Final
Act. 2--4; see also Ans. 2--4. The Examiner relies on Qui for all limitations
2
Appeal2015-008244
Application 13/707,220
of claim 1, except for the recited (claim 1) "by the computing device,
translating the pre-defined user input to a relative position on a content
portion of the touch-screen user interface, wherein the translation is
concurrent with the provision of the trackpad," for which the Examiner
relies on Tan. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Tan i-fi-f 18-23).
The Examiner reasons:
At the time [the] invention was made, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the method of Tan of
enabling a touch operation mode and perform concurrently a
certain function in response to a gesture into the method of
activating a portion of a keyboard as a touchpad of Qui such that
when it is detected a gesture on the keyboard (e.g., sliding finger
in a specific distance), a soft touch pad is displayed and a
particular area on the display would be concurrently controlled
in response to the detected gesture. The suggestion/motivation
would have been in order to enable the user to control the content
on the display quickly.
Final Act. 4.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Paragraphs 0022---0023 of Tan, however, do not describe any
transitioning between the symbol input mode and the touch
operation mode, as the Examiner alleges. In fact, nowhere does
Tan even suggest how one might switch between the two
keyboard modes. Rather, paragraphs 0022-0023 of Tan merely
describe how the keyboard may function when in touch
operation mode (i.e., the keyboard has already been divided into
sensing areas corresponding to operation areas of the user
interface). See, e.g., Tan at paras. 0022---0023. Specifically,
paragraph 0022 of Tan clearly states that user touch input on a
sensing area results in an action being performed in the
corresponding operation area (i.e., touch operation mode). See
id. at para. 0022. Paragraph 0023 of Tan provides an additional
example of a user touch input on a sensing area that results in a
scrolling action on the corresponding operation area (i.e., touch
operation mode). See id. at para. 0023.
3
Appeal2015-008244
Application 13/707,220
App. Br. 10-11.
In response, the Examiner explains:
Tan discloses a method of detecting attributes of a touch event
(i.e., touch and slide finger), analyzing the touch event, and
interpreting the touch event as the user's intention of operating
the keyboard in the touch operation mode. In other words, when
the keyboard is switched to the touch operation mode (i.e.,
equivalent to a trackpad mode as claimed invention), the touch
event (i.e., touching and sliding finger) is concurrently translated
into a scrolling command to scroll the content displayed in a
corresponding area in the user interface 410.
Ans. 3.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants' principal argument raises the following issue: Does Tan
teach the recited (claim 1) "translating the pre-defined user input to a
relative position on a content portion of the touch-screen user interface,
wherein the translation is concurrent with the provision of the trackpad."
Tan (i-f 19) discloses Tan's keyboard unit can be switched between
symbol input mode and touch operation mode. Tan (i-f 23) discloses:
[W]hen a user intends to completely browse all information
shown on a certain operation area 414 of the user interface 410,
the user can use his finger 470 to touch the sensing area 134
corresponding to the certain operation area 414 and move the
finger over the sensing area 134 for a specific distance. In this
way, the screen shown on the operation area 414 will move in a
direction opposite to the movement of the finger so that other
hidden information can be shown on the operation area 414.
Thus, Tan's user moving his finger 470 over sensing area 134 teaches
the recited (claim 1) "translating the pre-defined user input to a relative
position on a content portion of the touch-screen user interface."
4
Appeal2015-008244
Application 13/707,220
Further, although the cited portions of Tan do not explicitly describe
switching between the symbol input mode and the touch operation mode, a
skilled artisan would recognize that Tan suggests that touch operation mode
is provided concurrent with Tan's user moving his finger 470 over sensing
area 134. See Tan i-f 23 (emphasis added) ("when a user intends to
completely browse all information shown on a certain operation area 414 of
the user interface 410, the user can use his finger 470 to touch the sensing
area 134"); see also Tan i-f 8 (emphasis added) ("All the information can be
browsed by just moving the user's finger over the keyboard unit").
Thus, Tan teaches the recited (claim 1) "by the computing device,
translating the pre-defined user input to a relative position on a content
portion of the touch-screen user interface, wherein the translation is
concurrent with the provision of the trackpad."
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 4--10, 12-16, and 18-20, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3, 11, AND 17 OVER QUI, TAN, AND
CHIU
Appellants argue Chiu does not overcome the deficiencies of Qui and
Tan. App. Br. 11-12.
For reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 11, and 1 7.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
5
Appeal2015-008244
Application 13/707,220
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 ).
AFFIRMED
6