Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2021

2020001184 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2021)

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.
15/373,401 12/08/2016 Ali Kathryn Ent RPS920160009-US-NP 9850
109808 7590 09/28/2021
LENOVO/PANGRLE
Pangrle Patent, Brand & Design Law, P.C.
3500 W Olive Ave
3rd Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
EXAMINER
BOYD, JONATHAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2021 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):
brian@ppbdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALI KATHRYN ENT
Appeal 2020-001184
Application 15/373,401
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9–11, and 16–25, all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001184
Application 15/373,401

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “[w]ide touchpads.” Spec., Title. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a processor;
memory accessible by the processor;
a display housing, a keyboard housing and a hinge
assembly that rotatably couples the display housing and the
keyboard housing wherein the keyboard housing comprises
a hinge assembly end, a front end, a left side and a
right side;
a keyboard that comprises a spacebar, an S key, an
L key and an S-to-L key distance; and
a touchpad disposed between the spacebar and the
front end that extends a left side to right side distance greater
than the S-to-L key distance; and
palm-based gesture recognition circuitry operatively
coupled to the touchpad that comprises a library that comprises
at least one dual palm-based gesture.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Hotelling US 2006/0044259 A1 Mar. 2, 2006
Geaghan US 2009/0284495 A1 Nov. 19, 2009
Caporal US 2016/0070432 A1 Mar. 10, 2016
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9–11, 16–20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2020-001184
Application 15/373,401

3
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Hotelling and Caporal.
Final Act. 3–8.
Claims 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Hotelling, Caporal, and Geaghan. Id. at 8–9.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9–11, 16–20, and 25 over
Hotelling and Caporal
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10
The Examiner finds the combination of Hotelling and Caporal teaches
or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner
finds Hotelling teaches most limitations of claim 1, except “Hotelling fails to
explicitly teach palm based gestures.” Id. at 4. The Examiner finds Caporal
teaches “recognizing a palm-based gesture.” Id. The Examiner finds, “it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Hotelling to include palm gestures so as to expand on
the number of commands recognizable by the computer, thus increasing user
satisfaction in the product.” Id. 4.
Appellant contends that Hotelling and Caporal do not teach or
suggest, “at least one dual palm-based gesture,” as recited in claim 1. In
support of this contention, Appellant presents the following principal
arguments:
i. “Hotelling fails to disclose, teach or suggest a palm-based
gesture. Rather, Hotelling is explicit in that palm contact is rejected as being
unintentional. Hotelling states that only intentional contact is interpreted as
input. Hotelling never states or infers that palm contact is or can be
intentional contact.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Hotelling ¶ 6). Hotelling “is
Appeal 2020-001184
Application 15/373,401

4
directed to palm rejection where palm contact is determined to be
unintentional.” Id. at 7 (citing Hotelling ¶ 27). “Hotelling, when taken
properly as a whole, throughout describes palm rejection and finger input.”
Id. at 11 (citing Hotelling ¶ 32).
ii. Caporal “pertains to touch events performed on a touch screen
display of a client device 109, which can include ‘a palm swipe’, which is
singular.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Caporal ¶¶ 27–30). “Where the client device
109 is a ‘laptop computer’, Caporal’s ‘palm swipe’ would be on the [sic]
performed on a touch screen display of the client device 109, which, for a
conventional laptop computer, would not be a keyboard housing.” Id. at 9
(citing Caporal ¶ 32).
In response, the Examiner explains:
Hotelling is only stating that a large contact patch (palm input)
with no or minimal trajectory (static) is most likely
unintentional contact and does not explicitly state what happens
when the palm is in motion (palm gesture). Thus it can be
shown that Hotelling is able to detect a palm input, and detect if
a palm is in motion, however does not explicitly teach any type
of palm gesture.
Ans. 10 (citing Hotelling ¶ 51). “Hotelling discloses two handed input.” Id.
(citing Hotelling ¶ 32). Accordingly, “Hotelling would be at least capable of
two handed palm input.” Id. at 11. “Hotelling teaches detecting the two
gestures from each hand, where Caporal is simply modifying the type of
gesture being detected.” Id.
In further response, the Examiner explains “Caporal was introduced to
teach the palm swipe gesture (i.e. a gesture performed by a palm).” Ans. 11.
The Examiner “is only modifying Hotelling’s list of capable gestures to
include Caporal’s palm swipe gesture.” Id.
Appeal 2020-001184
Application 15/373,401

5
In still further response, the Examiner explains:
The combination is appropriate because we have shown that
Hotelling’s device is capable of detecting and processing palm
inputs as well as two handed input gestures and when combined
with Caporal’s palm swipe it would be reasonable to conclude
that Hotelling would be capable of detecting said two handed
palm swipes.
Ans. 12.
In reply, Appellant argues that, contrary to the apparatus of claim 1,
“[i]n both Hotelling and Caporal, the user must ‘search for’ the input
mechanism, locate it and lift a hand to contact it.” Reply Br. 3.
A “more likely than not” result given Hotelling and
Caporal would be for the portable computer 200 of Fig. 3 of
Hotelling to be modified to have its display screen 212 being a
touch screen display akin to the touch screen display 106 of the
tablet 109 of Caporal that can have a single palm swipe as input
(i.e., both require lifting a hand, locating a surface and touching
it).
Id.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the contested Examiner’s
findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Hotelling discloses, “[i]n contrast, a contact patch of a large size, and
with no or minimal trajectory, coupled with detection by the sensor, would
be initially estimated with a very low probability of intentional contact. This
may correspond to a palm resting on the touchpad surface.” Hotelling ¶ 51.
Thus, although Hotelling may reject unintentional inputs, Hotelling does
detect a palm on the touchpad. Id.
Appeal 2020-001184
Application 15/373,401

6
Hotelling further discloses “touchpad 224 is capable of multiple or
two-handed input.” Hotelling ¶ 32. Considering Hotelling’s disclosure of
two-handed input, together with Hotelling’s disclosure of detecting a palm
on the touchpad, suggests detecting dual palms on the touchpad. Hotelling
¶¶ 32, 51.
Caporal discloses, “gestures 236 can include a long press, a short
press, a left swipe, a right swipe, a finger swipe, or a palm swipe.” Caporal
¶ 30. Considering Hotelling’s suggestion to detect dual palms on the
touchpad, together with Caporal’s disclosure of a palm swipe gesture,
suggests detecting a dual palm-based gesture on the touchpad. Hotelling
¶¶ 32, 51; Caporal ¶ 30. The Examiner articulated a reason to have
combined the teachings of Hotelling and Caporal that is rational on its face,
and supported by evidence drawn from the record. Final Act. 4; see also
Caporal ¶ 30.
Thus, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, we determine Hotelling and
Caporal, together, teach or suggest, “palm-based gesture recognition
circuitry operatively coupled to the touchpad that comprises a library that
comprises at least one dual palm-based gesture,” as recited in claim 1.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), this argument does not persuade
us of reversible Examiner error because although Hotelling, alone, may
suggest that palm contact is unintentional and should be rejected, Caporal
suggests intentional palm gestures. Thus, the combined teachings of
Hotelling and Caporal need not reject palm gestures. For similar reasons, the
combined teachings of Hotelling and Caporal are not limited to finger input.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), this argument does not persuade
us of reversible Examiner error because the Examiner relies on Caporal for
Appeal 2020-001184
Application 15/373,401

7
the concept of a palm gesture. It is Caporal’s teachings of this concept of a
palm gesture that is combined with Hotelling’s teachings. Thus, to the extent
Caporal relates to a touch screen or single palm input, such disclosures in
Caporal do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s conclusions based on
the combined teachings of Hotelling and Caporal.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 5, 7, 9,
and 10, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal
Br. 12.
2. Claims 11 and 16–20
Appellant argues “claim 11 recites first and second dynamic palm
gestures, which as explained with respect to claim 1, above, is not supported
by evidence in Hotelling and Caporal.” Appeal Br. 14; see Reply Br. 4.
Appellant further argues, “claims 16 and 17 are not unpatentable for at least
their dependence on claim 11.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant further argues
“claim 18 recites first and second dynamic palm gestures, which as
explained with respect to claim 1, above, is not supported by evidence in
Hotelling and Caporal.” Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant
further argues “claims 19 and 20 are not unpatentable for at least their
dependence on claim 18.” Appeal Br. 15.
Because Appellant relies on its challenges to claim 1, which did not
persuade us of Examiner error, to overcome the rejection of claims 11 and
18; we, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 16–20
for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1.
Appeal 2020-001184
Application 15/373,401

8
3. Claim 25
Claim 25 further recites, “the library comprises a shearing gesture for
one palm slid upwardly toward a hinge assembly end of the keyboard
housing and another palm slid downwardly toward a front edge of a
keyboard housing.” The Examiner finds:
Hotelling teaches multi hand gestures (See; p[0032]). Further
since the disclosure offers no criticality and no unexpected
results from this type of gesture then it is deemed a design
choice. Therefore it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to use the gesture above as
a mere design choice based on the specific device that it will be
used for.
Final Act. 8.
The Examiner further explains,
claim 25 is essentially teaching the well-known operation of
expanding two touch points which is traditionally used to zoom
out on an object. There is no criticality or unexpected results
from performing this well-known gesture while using two
palms as opposed to using two fingers and thus is proper under
a design choice. Further the claim does not disclose a
result/action of said gesture (such as with claims 22, 24) and is
only claiming the motion itself.
Ans. 12.
Appellant argues, “Hotelling and Caporal fail to provide a motivation
or a reason for the Examiner’s modification. As explained above, evidence
in Hotelling demonstrates that palm contact is unintentional and rejected and
evidence in Caporal is specifically for ‘a palm swipe’ in the singular on a
touch screen display.” Appeal Br. 13; see Reply Br. 4–5.
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the contested Examiner’s
findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Appeal 2020-001184
Application 15/373,401

9
Design choice applies when old elements in the prior art perform the
same function as the now recited structures. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,
555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and
presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design
choice within the skill of the art”). However, when the recited structure
performs differently from the known structures a finding of obvious design
choice is precluded. In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (finding
of obvious design choice precluded when claimed structure and the function
it performs are different from the known structures). See In re Chu, 66 F.3d
292, 298–99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the
applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function).
In claim 25, Applicant is only claiming the gesture itself, and the
claim does not recite any resulting function or action, let alone recite any
resulting function or action that is different than those of the known gestures.
Ans. 12. Thus, we determine that the “shearing gesture” recited in claim 25
is an obvious design choice.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 21–24 over Hotelling, Caporal, and
Geaghan
The Examiner finds Hotelling, Caporal, and Geaghan, together, teach
or suggest all of the limitations of claims 21–24. Final Act. 8–9. In
particular, the Examiner finds Geaghan “teaches the well-known pinching
gesture.” Final Act. 8 (citing Geaghan ¶ 39); see also Ans. 13 (“Geaghan
was introduced to show the well-known gestures of pinch/expand to
zoom/zoom out of an object on display.”).
Appeal 2020-001184
Application 15/373,401

10
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
“The algorithm [in Geaghan] is explicit: ‘subtract stray and,
optionally, palm’. The word ‘palm’ is only mentioned in GEAGHAN in
association with the ‘Subtract stray and, optionally, palm’.” Appeal Br. 16–
17. “The evidence in GEAGHAN is consistent with palm rejection.” Id. at
17. “GEAGHAN is directed to ‘fingers’ and the exclusion of a ‘palm’.”
Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 5–10.
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the contested Examiner’s
findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Hotelling’s suggestion of detecting dual palms on the touchpad (two-
handed input, detecting a palm on the touchpad), together with Caporal’s
disclosure of a palm swipe gesture, suggests detecting a dual palm-based
gesture on the touchpad. Hotelling ¶¶ 32, 51; Caporal ¶ 30
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of error because the
Examiner’s further reliance on Geaghan’s teachings is for the specific
gestures and associated functions, as recited in claims 21–24. Geaghan ¶ 39.
Thus, the combined teachings of Hotelling, Caporal, and Geaghan do not
reject palm gestures. For these same reasons, the combined teachings of
Hotelling, Caporal, and Geaghan are not limited to finger input.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–24.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9–11,
and 16–25.
Appeal 2020-001184
Application 15/373,401

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 7,
9–11, 16–
20, 25
103 Hotelling, Caporal 1, 2, 5, 7,
9–11, 16–
20, 25

21–24 103 Hotelling, Caporal,
Geaghan
21–24
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5, 7,
9–11, 16–
25

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED