Philip Lawrence

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 4, 2019

13714172 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2019)

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.
13/714,172 12/13/2012 Philip Lawrence NVID-P-SC-12-0299-US1 1098
45594 7590 10/04/2019
NVIDIA C/O MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP
111 NORTH MARKET STREET
SUITE 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
CRAWLEY, KEITH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2019 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 PHILIP LAWRENCE1
_____________

Appeal 2018-008476
Application 13/714,172
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BETH Z. SHAW, and NORMAN H.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 22 through 29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system to simulate pressure
data in response to contact made with a touch sensitive device, by use of
surface area associated with the contact at the time contact was made, as

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nvidia Corp. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008476
Application 13/714,172

2

well as a calculated rate of change between the surface areas touched over
time. Abstract. Claim 22 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced
below:
22. A method of processing a user contact with a
touch-sensitive device, said method comprising:
storing a pre-defined range of emulated pressure
data on said touch-sensitive device, wherein said pre-
defined range of emulated pressure data comprises
different emulated pressure data values assigned to
different surface area values and surface area rates of
changes determined by prior user contact with a touch-
sensitive display, wherein said pre-defined range of
emulated pressure data is made accessible to a plurality
of different applications resident on said device by an
operating system resident on said device;
with respect to a user contact with said touch-
sensitive display, simulating physical pressure applied to
said touch-sensitive display by said user contact by
comparing a surface area and a rate of change of surface
area of said user contact with said stored pre-defined
range of emulated pressure data to obtain an emulated
pressure value for said user contact; and
supplying said emulated pressure value to an
executing application from said plurality of different
applications to cause an action thereon.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 22 through 24 and 26 through 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S.
Appeal 2018-008476
Application 13/714,172

3

2016/0188181 A1; June 30, 2016) and Harris (US 2013/0257807 A1; Oct. 3,
2013). Final Act. 2–6.2
The Examiner has rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith, Harris, and Ferren (US 2013/0335349 A1;
Dec. 19, 2013). Final Act. 6–7.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 22 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of representative
independent claim 22 is in error, as the Examiner did not show the
combination of the references teaches the limitation directed to the pre-
defined range of emulated pressure data comprises different data values
assigned to different surface area values and surface area rates of changes
determined by prior user contact with a touch-sensitive display. Appeal Br.
9–12. Specifically, Appellant argues that Smith teaches profiles based upon
contact area but does not use rates of surface area changes. Appeal Br. 10.
With respect to Harris, Appellant states:
In Harris, the only teaching of any changes in surface area of a
contact is used to improve upon an accuracy of estimated values
derived from the inputs initially received via the mechanical
devices (see, e.g., paragraphs [0059-0060]). In contrast to the
direct pressure measurement teachings of Harris, the claimed

2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed February 28,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 31, 2018
(“Answer”), and the Final Office Action, mailed May 9, 2017 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2018-008476
Application 13/714,172

4

embodiments simulate physical pressure applied to a touch-
sensitive display by comparing a surface area and a rate of
change of surface area of a contact with a stored predefined
range of emulated pressure data to obtain an emulated pressure
value for the contact. Indeed, by teaching that the pressure
values are derived by direct pressure measurement devices,
Harris actually teaches procedures that are completely unrelated
to the claimed embodiments in any manner.

Appeal Br. 9–10 (emphasis omitted). Further, Appellant argues that there is
no motivation to combine the teachings of Smith and Harris. Appeal Br. 13–
14.
The Examiner provides a detailed and comprehensive response to
Appellant’ arguments on pages 4 through 8 of the Answer. We have
reviewed the Examiner’s response, the evidence cited and we concur with
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We add the following for
emphasis. As the Examiner identifies that Smith teaches a profile having a
predefined ranges of emulated pressure and a spectrum of thresholds having
extreme and intermediate thresholds of touch. Answer 4 (citing Smith paras.
244, and 445 through 460). Further, Smith teaches the profiles include
pressure, measured by contact area (of a digits contact with the touch
screen), and pressure velocity. Answer 4 (citing Smith paras. 777 through
782). Thus, we concur with the Examiner that Smith teaches the claimed
storing pre-defined range of emulated pressure data, representing different
pressure values assigned to different surface areas.
Although the Examiner states that Smith does not teach the data also
includes surface area rate of change, the Examiner finds that Harris does.
Answer 4. The Examiner finds, and we concur, that Harris is concerned
with determining the pressure placed by a digit on a touch screen and
Appeal 2018-008476
Application 13/714,172

5

teaches associating a pressure with a rate of change of a surface area.
Answer 4 (citing Harris para. 60). It is the combination of these teachings,
i.e., using the data from Harris’ teaching of associating a pressure with data
concerning the rate of change of surface area into the data profiles taught by
Smith that teaches the disputed limitation. We are not persuaded of error by
Appellant’s argument that Harris is concerned with improving accuracy of
estimated values from direct pressure measurements and as such is unrelated
to the claimed invention as we disagree with the premise of Appellant’s
argument. Answer 10–11. As identified by the Examiner, Harris is not
limited to adjusting inputs from direct pressure measurements, but rather
also applies to touch screens, which are not pressure sensitive. Answer 5
(citing Harris paras. 4, 12, 60, and 69). Further, we are not persuaded of
error by Appellant’s arguments concerning the motivation to combine the
teachings. The Examiner states,
Harris clearly teach, a change in size over time of the touch
input can be an indication of the amount of pressure applied,
and the processor can analyze the rate of change to determine
how fast, hard, and/or with how much force the user is applying
the touch input. Harris explicitly states that such a rate of
change determination “aids in improving the accuracy of an
estimated velocity value”

Answer 5 (citing Harris paras. 4, 11, and 60). We consider this reasoned
rationale to be based upon the teachings of the references. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
22, and claims 23, 24, and 26 through 29 grouped with claim 22.

With respect to claim 25, Appellant argues that the rejection is in error
for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 22. Further, Appellant argues
Appeal 2018-008476
Application 13/714,172

6

that the teachings of Ferren are silent regarding a predefined range of
emulate pressure data as claimed and thus do not make up for the
deficiencies noted with regard to the rejection of claim 22. Appeal Br 15.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments stating that Smith
and Harris teaches the predefined range of emulated pressure data and that
“Ferren is merely relied upon to teach that a processing component may
utilize an application programming interface to communicate with an
executing application.” Answer 8 (citing Ferren para. 45).
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25.
As discussed above, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Smith and Harris teaches the emulated pressure data.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22 through 29 is affirmed.

Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
22–24 and 26–
29
§ 103 Smith, Harris 22–24 and
26–29

25 § 103 Smith, Harris,
Ferren
25
Outcome 22–29

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED