Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2021

2020005690 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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.
13/897,656 05/20/2013 Russell Speight VanBlon RPS920130025USNP(710.232) 8112
58127 7590 10/29/2021
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
AZARI, SEPEHR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RUSSELL SPEIGHT VANBLON, ARNOLD S. WEKSLER,
JOHN CARL MESE, and NATHAN J. PETERSON
____________________

Appeal 2020 -005690
Application 13/897,6561
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is a method of disabling touch input to an
information handling device. The method comprises receiving a first input
from a device component indicating positional orientation of the information

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant states that the real party in interest is Lenovo (Singapore)
Pte. Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005690
Application 13/897,656

2
handling device, and receiving a second input indicating that the information
handling device is undergoing movement. Responsive to receiving both of
the first input and the second input at substantially the same time, the
method calls for disabling at least a portion of the touch input surface of the
information handling device. See Abstr.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a first input from at least one device component
indicating an upright positional orientation of an information
handling device;
receiving a second input from the at least one device
component indicating that the information handling device is
undergoing horizontal movement;
determining, based on the first input and the second
input, a carrying arrangement of the information handling
device;
identifying, based on the determining, a portion of a
touch input surface of the information handling device having a
high inadvertent touch probability in the carrying arrangement,
wherein the portion does not correspond to an entirety of the
touch input surface; and
disabling, based on the identifying and prior to receiving
any touch input on any location of the touch input surface, only
the portion of the touch input surface during a duration of the
carrying arrangement.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Hotelling US 2011/0012840 A1 Jan. 20, 2011
Hinckley et al. US 2012/0154294 A1 June 21, 2012
Hankins US 2013/0207905 A1 Aug. 15, 2013
Ananthapadmanabh
(hereinafter “IBM”)
US 2014/0092024 A1 Apr. 3, 2014

Appeal 2020-005690
Application 13/897,656

3
Claims 1, 3, 7–9, 10, 12, and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over IBM and Hankins.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over IBM, Hankins, and Hinckley.
Claims 4–6 and 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over IBM, Hankins, and Hotelling.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed May 5, 2020), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July
31, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 16, 2020) for
their respective details.

ISSUE
Does the combination of IBM and Hankins teach or suggest
identifying a portion of a touch input surface of an information handling
device having a high inadvertent touch probability, and disabling that
portion of the touch input surface, prior to receiving any touch input on any
location of the touch input surface?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 7–10, 12, and 16–19
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “identifying, based on
the determining, a portion of a touch input surface of the information
handling device having a high inadvertent touch probability,” and
“disabling, based on the identifying and prior to receiving any touch input on
any location of the touch input surface.” Independent claims 10 and 19 recite
analogous limitations.
Appeal 2020-005690
Application 13/897,656

4
Each of the independent claims recites the “disabling” step “based on
the identifying” step, which means that the identifying step must be
performed prior to the disabling step. The disabling step is explicitly recited
as being performed “prior to receiving any touch input on any location of the
touch input surface.” Since the identifying step must be performed prior to
the disabling step, the identifying step must therefore also be performed
prior to receiving any touch input on any location of the touch input surface.
The Examiner finds that IBM teaches identifying, based on the
determining, a portion of a touch input surface having a high inadvertent
touch probability. Final Act. 4 (citing IBM ¶¶ 32–33). The Examiner
reiterates this finding in the Answer, responding to Appellant’s arguments,
finding that “IBM does not require a touch input to determine whether to
deactivate at least a portion of the touch screen.” Ans. 3. The Examiner cites
to IBM’s teaching that some combination of sensor outputs from its touch
screen, orientation sensor, and/or motion sensor reflect a touching of the
touch screen. Id. (citing IBM ¶ 42).
We find that the Examiner erred in the application of the IBM
reference against the claims. We agree with Appellant’s argument that the
IBM reference consistently discloses that “[a]n unintentional touching of
touch screen, as determined by one or more predefined events, causes a
predetermined region of the touch screen to be disabled.” IBM Abstr. and
¶ 3; Reply Br. 16. Figure 3 of IBM “is a high level flow chart of one or more
exemplary steps performed by a processor to detect and handle unintentional
touches to a touch screen.” IBM ¶ 6. IBM Figure 3 flow chart contains
precisely two steps: first, step 304, “detect an unintentional touching of a
Appeal 2020-005690
Application 13/897,656

5
touch screen;” second, step 306, “disable a predetermined region of the
touch screen.” IBM Fig. 3.
[I]t is possible for a user’s hands 204a-204b to inadvertently
touch the touch screen 210 when grabbing the portable
computing device 202 with both hands (as depicted), when
holding the portable computing device 202 down by one’s side
while carrying it, when passing the portable computing device
202 to another person, etc. In accordance with the present
invention, such inadvertent/accidental/unintentional touching of
the touch screen 210 results in some or all of the real estate
(i.e., surface area) of the touch screen 210 being disabled and/or
powered off.

IBM ¶ 29 (emphasis added).
We find that IBM teaches a device and method in which a
determination of unintentional touching is made prior to, and which results
in, some portion of a touch screen being disabled. In IBM, the touch input
must occur first. “[I]f ISTH 148 determines that the area being touched by
hands 204a-204b in Fig. 2 is not intentionally being touched . . . then just the
area under the hands 204a-204b is disabled, allowing the rest of the touch
screen 202 to remain enabled.” IBM ¶ 40 (emphasis added). We therefore
agree with Appellant that IBM does not teach the claimed identifying step
occurring prior to the receipt of touch input. The Examiner’s rejection, based
as it is on a finding that IBM does teach such identifying prior to touch
input, is therefore erroneous.
The Examiner’s combination of IBM and Hankins fails to establish
the prima facie obviousness of claims 1, 3, 7–10, 12, and 16–19. We do not
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.

Appeal 2020-005690
Application 13/897,656

6
Claims 2, 4–6, 11, 13–15, and 20
Claims 2, 11, and 20 depend respectively from independent claims 1,
10, and 19. The Examiner does not find that Hinckley supplies the teaching
that we find to be missing from the combination of IBM and Hankins.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 2, 11,
and 20, for the reasons expressed supra with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19.
Claims 4–6 depend from independent claim 1, and claims 13–15
depend from independent claim 10. The Examiner does not find that
Hotelling supplies the teaching that we find to be missing from the
combination of IBM and Hankins. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 4–6 and 13–15, for the reasons
expressed supra with respect to claims 1 and 10.

CONCLUSION
The combination of IBM and Hankins does not teach or suggest
identifying a portion of a touch input surface of an information handling
device having a high inadvertent touch probability, and disabling that
portion of the touch input surface, prior to receiving any touch input on any
location of the touch input surface.
Appeal 2020-005690
Application 13/897,656

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 7–10,
12, 16–19
103 IBM, Hankins 1, 3, 7–10,
12, 16–19
2, 11, 20 103 IBM, Hankins,
Hinckley
2, 11, 20
4–6, 13–15 103 IBM, Hankins,
Hotelling
4–6, 13–15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.

REVERSED