Tomotake Aono

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2021

2020003255 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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. 13/392,858 02/27/2012 Tomotake Aono 005000-K00019 2719 78198 7590 12/30/2021 Studebaker & Brackett PC 8255 Greensboro Drive Suite 300 Tysons, VA 22102 EXAMINER JANSEN II, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2021 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): info@sbpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TOMOTAKE AONO ____________ Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5, which constitute all the pending claims in this application. 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 Kyocera Corporation as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an input apparatus “which provides feedback to a user through a tactile sensation in response to a push operation and a slide operation to a touch sensor by the user.” Spec., Abstr. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. An input apparatus comprising: a touch sensor configured to detect a touch input; a display unit configured to display an object; a tactile sensation providing unit configured to vibrate a touch face of the touch sensor; a load detection unit configured to detect a pressure load on the touch face; and a control unit configured to control drive of the tactile sensation providing unit such that a tactile sensation is provided to a touch object touching the touch face, wherein the control unit is configured: to determine whether the touch object is sliding on the touch face; when the touch object is sliding on the touch face, to control drive of the tactile sensation providing unit such that a tactile sensation of sliding is provided to the touch object without providing a tactile sensation of pushing even with the load detection unit detecting the pressure load changing from a state failing to satisfy a first predetermined load to a state satisfying the first predetermined load, to set a second load higher than the first predetermined load on the basis of the pressure load detected by the load detection unit when the touch object stops sliding on the touch face and, after the second load is set, to control drive of the tactile sensation providing unit such that the tactile sensation of pushing is provided to the touch object when, without the touch object being removed from the touch face, the load detection unit Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 3 detects the pressure load changing from a state failing to satisfy the second load to a state satisfying the second load; and when the touch object is not sliding on the touch face and the load detection unit detects the pressure load changing from the state failing to satisfy the first predetermined load to the state satisfying the first predetermined load, to control drive of the tactile sensation providing unit such that the tactile sensation of pushing, different from the tactile sensation of sliding, is provided to the touch object. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Poupyrev US 2008/0024459 A1 Jan. 31, 2008 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1, 3, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poupyrev. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office Action, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 4 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). 1. Does Poupyrev teach or suggest the limitation of “tactile sensation of sliding” as recited in claim 1? Appellant argues that Poupyrev does not teach the limitation of “tactile sensation of sliding” recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues that Poupyrev provides that “when the user 2 intersects a hotspot or boundary of the GUI object 310 and the pressure value is below an actuation threshold value, the apparatus provides a tactile feedback 302 to allow the user 2 to ‘feel’ the GUI object 310.” Appeal Br. 4 (citing para. 85). Appellant argues that the “tactile feedback” recited in paragraph 85 of Poupyrev causes the user to feel the GUI object, which is clearly different from the “tactile sensation of sliding” of the present application which causes the user to feel the sliding. Id. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Figure 3 of Poupyrev, reproduced below, shows a user sliding a finger on a touch surface and receives a haptic sensation while sliding the finger through the GUI object. Ans. 7 (citing Poupyrev paras. 78-98). The Examiner considers this clearly an indication of haptic feedback that is a “tactile sensation of sliding” as the user is sliding the finger and receiving feedback during the course of the sliding event. Id. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Poupyrev teaches a sliding operation wherein a user slides a finger 200 across a GUI object 203 displayed on a screen 203, and “[u]pon detecting the user’s touch, the 2D position sensing unit 104 starts tracking and keeps track of the user’s finger.” Ans. 8 (citing Poupyrev, para. 80 (emphasis added); see also para. Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 5 79 explicitly referring to a “sliding operation”). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that when a certain hotspot 203b or boundary element 203a, which forms part of the GUI object, is crossed by the finger 200 (Step 211), it is determined if any pressing event is recognized (Step 212). Ans. 8 (citing Poupyrev para. 80). Poupyrev’s Figure 3 is reproduced befow: Poupyrev’s Figure 3 shows a sliding operation and tracking of a user’s finger 200 wherein when a hotspot 203b or boundary element 203a which forms part of the GUI object is crossed, the tactile feedback unit will provide the user a haptic feedback 201, 202 and the user can feel the GUI object without activating it if the pressing event is not activated. Poupyrev, paras. 80, 81 (describing Examiner’s cited Figure 3). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Poupyrev teaches or suggests that the haptic feedback 201 and Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 6 202 during a sliding operation where a pressing event is not recognized to activate selection of the GUI (i.e., sliding is recognized but the pressing event to activate is not recognized), constitutes “tactile sensation of sliding” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner further finds that the pressure sensing unit 105 monitors the pressure of the user’s finger applied to the screen and the pressing event is recognized if the pressure more than a predetermined value is detected. Ans. 8 (citing Poupyrev, para. 80). Most importantly, Poupyrev teaches distinguishing sliding from touching as the tactile feedback generating unit 102 generates and provides another haptic feedback different from the one provided in the event of no pressing (i.e., sliding). Ans. 8 (citing Poupyrev, para. 82). Thus, Poupyrev teaches two types of tactile feedback, one when the pressing event is recognized as more than a predetermined value and another haptic feedback during the sliding operation when no pressing event to actuate the GUI is detected. See Poupyrev, paras. 80, 82. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that the GUI object itself is comprised of a “hotspot” area that may have any type of shape. Ans. 8 (citing Poupyrev, para. 100). Poupyrev teaches that “tactile feedback will be provided when the user 2 slides the finger into the GUI object and then when the user slides the finger into the center.” Poupyrev, para. 100. We also agree with the Examiner that Poupyrev teaches that in Figure 7(a) the hotspot area 501 is provided inside the GUI button 500 for presenting a tactile feedback when the user slides the finger into the GUI button 500. Ans. 8 (citing para. 99 and Fig. 7(a)). Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 7 In its Reply Appellant argues that the “tactile feedback” recited in paragraph 85 of Poupyrev causes the user to feel the GUI object, which is clearly different from the “tactile sensation of sliding” of the present invention which causes the user to feel the sliding. Reply Br. 3. Appellant further argues that paragraph 82 of Poupyrev does not explicitly relate to a sensation of sliding, but instead relates to providing “tactile feedback” based on a GUI element being “selected” but not “activated.” Id. Thus, paragraph 82 of Poupyrev distinguishes between selection of a GUI element and actuation of the GUI element, but not “sliding.” Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because when read in context, it is clear that during “a sliding operation” which is tantamount to a no pressing event for actuation being recognized, in the cited paragraphs, the GUI object is selected, but not activated, while the finger 200 is sliding over the hotspots of the GUI. Poupyrev, paras. 78-82. Thus, the Examiner is correct in that when the GUI is selected during the sliding operation, but not activated, a different tactile feedback is provided than when the GUI is activated. Furthermore, Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings with respect to Poupyrev paragraphs 99, 100 and Figure 7(a), teaching tactile feedback when the user slides the finger inside the GUI, and thus teaching “tactile sensation of sliding.” Poupyrev, paras. 99, 100 and Fig. 7(a). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Poupyrev teaches the limitation of “tactile sensation of sliding” recited in claim 1. 2. Does Poupyrev teach or suggest the limitation of “set a second load higher than the first predetermined load” as recited in claim 1? Appellant argues that Poupyrev provides that “an additional step for confirming the completion of actuating operation, such as adding another Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 8 pressure threshold or detecting releasing of the finger, may be added to avoid accidental actuation.” Appeal Br. 4 (citing para. 87). Appellant argues that the Examiner assertion that “adding another pressure threshold” corresponds to the feature “set a second load higher than the first predetermined load” is incorrect because “adding another pressure threshold” is for confirming the completion of an actuating operation (i.e., an operation in which the user presses and releases the GUI object), and moreover, “detecting releasing of the finger” is shown as an alternative example, and thus the additional threshold is lower than the actuation threshold value, and is the exact opposite of the claimed feature. Id. Appellant argues that “another pressure threshold” recited in paragraph 87 of Poupyrev is for confirming the completion of an actuating operation and thus, is used after the actuating operation is started (i.e., after the GUI object is pushed), which is clearly different from the claimed “second load,” which is used at the time of pushing. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that the claimed feature of “set a second load higher than the first predetermined load” recited in claim 1 is not disclosed, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious based on the feature “adding another pressure threshold” of Poupyrev. Id. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relies on the following Poupyrev paragraphs reproduced below to address Appellant’s argument: [0087] Alternatively, an additional step for confirming the completion of actuating operation, such as adding another pressure threshold or detecting releasing of the finger, may be added to avoid accidental actuation. An example of additional pressure threshold for confirmation will be described below with FIG. 11. Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 9 [0090] Another variation of the actuating technique address a case when the user 2 slides into the GUI object 310 with pressure already above the actuation threshold. In this case the following possibilities (or their combination) may be considered: [0093] (iii) the GUI object 310 is not actuated but the apparatus 1 is tracking the pressure value and attempt to recognize an actuation event. [0098] In case (iii), the GUI object 310 is not actuated but the apparatus 1 is tracking the pressure value and attempt to recognize an actuation event, i.e. some gesture that allows the user to specify that the GUI object 310 should be actuated. Such gesture event could be for example, impulse-like increase of pressure, i.e. the user quickly presses and releases the GUI object. A user interface software may be utilizes to recognize a spike in the pressure applied to the GUI object 310 and treat it as an actuation event. Ans. 9 (citing paras. 87, 90, 93, 98). The Examiner finds that paragraph 87 suggests that one can provide an additional step for completing the actuating operation, such as “adding another pressure threshold” to avoid accidental actuation. Ans. 9 (citing Poupyrev, para. 87). The Examiner has interpreted the most relevant portion is the “adding another pressure threshold” in relation to case (iii). Ans. 9- 10. The Examiner finds that it should be clear that “adding” explicitly suggests to join (something) to something else so as to increase the size, number, or amount. Ans. 10. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that there is “additional” load that is detected as it pertains with case (iii), and paragraph 87 will be further discussed below to clarify that it entails the embodiment of case (iii) as it relates to the thresholds of selection and actuation. See infra. Appellant in its Reply disagrees with the Examiner’s finding that “adding another pressure threshold” corresponds to the feature “set a second Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 10 load higher than the first predetermined load” recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that since “adding another pressure threshold” recited in paragraph 87 of Poupyrev is for confirming the completion of an actuating operation (i.e., an operation in which the user presses and releases the GUI object), and moreover, “detecting releasing of the finger” is shown as an alternative example, Poupyrev means to add a threshold that is lower than the actuation threshold value, which is the exact opposite of the claimed feature “set a second load higher than the first predetermined load” recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3. Further, according to Appellant “another pressure threshold” recited in paragraph 87 of Poupyrev is for confirming the completion of an actuating operation and thus, is used after the actuating operation is started (i.e., after the GUI object is pushed), which is clearly different from the claimed “second load,” which is used at the time of pushing. Reply Br. 3-4. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner cited paragraph 87 for teaching “adding” another pressure load and then focused on the embodiment of case (iii), described in paragraphs 90, 93, and 98 of Poupyrev, wherein the apparatus first recognizes the touch above the initial threshold amount during sliding for an actuation by tracking the pressure value, (i.e. the claimed “first predetermined load”) and then looks for a secondary threshold amount, the “impulse-like increase of pressure” or “spike in pressure” (i.e. the claimed “a second load higher than the first predetermined load”), to actuate the object. Ans. 9-10 (citing paras. 90, 93, 98). Appellant in its Reply did not address the Examiner’s findings with respect to case (iii) and its respective paragraphs 90, 93, and 98. Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 11 Instead of addressing case (iii), Appellant focuses on paragraph 87 and argues that “adding another pressure threshold” according to Poupyrev means to add a threshold that is lower than the actuation threshold value, which is the exact opposite of the claimed feature “set a second load higher than the first predetermined load” recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Poupyrev’s paragraph 87 refers to the embodiment of Figure 11. Poupyrev, para. 87. Paragraph 87 states that “an additional step for confirming the completion of actuating operation, such as adding another pressure threshold or detecting releasing of the finger, may be added to avoid accidental actuation. An example of additional pressure threshold for confirmation will be described below with FIG. 11.” Poupyrev, para. 87. Figure 11 is described in pertinent part in paragraphs 119-121. See Poupyrev, paras. 119-121. Figure 11 is reproduced below: Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 12 Figure 11 shows a pressure versus time curve (a) with three thresholds, including selection, actuation, and confirmation thresholds wherein the selection threshold is lower than the actuation threshold, and the actuation threshold is lower than the confirmation threshold. Fig. 11. As shown in Figure 11, the confirmation threshold is higher than the actuation threshold. See Fig. 11. Thus, we do not agree with Appellant’s argument that “adding another pressure threshold” according to Poupyrev means to add a threshold that is lower than the actuation threshold value, which is the exact opposite of the claimed feature “set a second load higher than the first predetermined load” recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3. While Appellant presumes that the added threshold is lower that than the actuation threshold, the description of Figure 11 teaches the opposite Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 13 because the added threshold which is the confirmation threshold is higher than the actuation threshold. Poupyrev, paras. 119, 120. Poupyrev teaches with respect to Figure 11 that there are several thresholds used in actuation and providing tactile feedback. Poupyrev para. 119. Poupyrev teaches that as the user touches and pushes the GUI object to pass a selection threshold, a tactile feedback is provided (Point 1 of Curve (a)) without actuating the GUI object. Id. The user presses further to pass the actuation threshold where a different tactile feedback is provided (Point 2). Id. In this example, Poupyrev notes, the GUI object is not actuated. Id. In the embodiment of Figure 11, the user presses further to the confirmation threshold that provides still another tactile feedback (Point 3). Poupyrev, para. 119. Thus, clearly and contrary to Appellant’s argument the additional confirmation threshold is higher than the actuation threshold. See Fig. 11 and Poupyrev, para. 119. We also do not agree with Appellant’s argument that “another pressure threshold” recited in paragraph 87 of Poupyrev is for confirming the completion of an actuating operation and thus, is used after the actuating operation is started (i.e., after the GUI object is pushed), which is clearly different from the claimed “second load,” which is used at the time of pushing. See Reply Br. 3-4. There are two separate alternative embodiments that the Examiner relied upon to meet the disputed limitation. The embodiment of Figures 5(a)-(c) and the embodiment of Figure 11. We address the embodiment of Figure 5(a-(c) embodiment first. Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 14 The Examiner relies on the embodiment of Figures 5(a)-(c) to address the disputed limitation. Final Act. 13-14. Figures 5(a)-(c) are reproduced below: Figure 5(a) shows a finger from an initial position 300 sliding over a GUI object and the user feels a haptic feedback 201, 202 as an indicator that the user has touched or selected the GUI object 203 with a pressure value that is below an actuation threshold value, and the apparatus provides a tactile feedback to “feel” the GUI object 310. Poupyrev, paras. 80, 81, 85. This pressure value that is below the actuation threshold value meets the claimed “first predetermined load.” The pressure applied to the screen may be visually presented on the screen in an image 320 with an indication 321 of the actuation threshold. Poupyrev, para. 85. Note that this is equivalent to the selection threshold of Figure 11 as discussed above and shown in Figure 11. The user can feel the GUI objects on the screen, based on the pressing event of the finger being recognized, without activating them. Poupyrev, paras. 80, 81. Thus, Poupyrev teaches haptic feedback as the user slides and touches or selects the GUI object (i.e., sliding the finger and Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 15 touching or selecting the GUI) with a pressure of a predetermined value (i.e., the first predetermined load). Id. When the pressing event is recognized, the tactile feedback generating unit generates and provides a haptic feedback different from the one provided in the event of no pressing, i.e., when GUI elements were selected. Poupyrev, para. 82. Accordingly, Poupyrev teaches a different haptic feedback when the activation occurs. Poupyrev expressly teaches “the different haptic feedbacks are provided to distinct and logical states of GUI object, namely “selected state” and “activated state.” Poupyrev, para. 83. In Figure 5(b) the user continues to slide the finger until inside area 303 of the GUI object 310 and the pressure is below the actuation threshold. Poupyrev, para. 86. Figure 5(c) shows that the user then presses the GUI object 310 stronger and increases the pressure value above the actuation threshold 321 and the GUI object is actuated and tactile feedback 304 is provided to inform the user that the GUI was actuated. Poupyrev, para. 86. Thus, in Figure 5(c) the actuation threshold is reached when the user presses stronger and increases the threshold from the selection threshold to the actuation threshold (i.e., “set a second load higher than the first predetermined load”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the embodiment of Figures 5(a)-(c) teach or suggest the disputed limitation of “set a second load higher than the first predetermined load” as recited in claim 1. We now turn to the alternative embodiment of Figure 11. The Examiner addressed the applicability of the alternative embodiment of Figure 11 as it also meets the disputed limitation. The Examiner finds that in the embodiment where the user slides into the GUI object with pressure Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 16 already above the actuation threshold, the GUI object is not actuated but the apparatus continues to track the pressure value and attempts to recognize a new actuation event. Final Act. 14 and see Ans. 9-10 (citing Poupyrev, paras. 87, 90, 93, 98). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that because the GUI object is not actuated but the apparatus is still tracking the pressure value, the system attempts to recognize the new actuation event to actuate the GUI object. Id. The Examiner finds that this new event is some gesture that allows the user to specify that the GUI object should be actuated. Final Act. 14; Ans. 9 (citing Poupyrev, para. 98). The Examiner finds that this type of gesture event can be an impulse-like increase of pressure from the user quickly pressing and releasing the GUI object. Id. As the embodiment of case (iii) relates to Figure 11, the Examiner finds that the actuation threshold is no longer associated with an actuation event but becomes regarded as nothing more than a selection event and is ignored. Id. A better statement would be that during the actuation threshold the finger is still being tracked and it is a continuation of what occurs at the selection threshold. The Examiner finds that the impulse like increase in pressure is detected and it is becomes the new additional step for confirming completion of the actuating operation by adding (which expressly suggests “setting” in the claim) another pressure threshold. Id. In other words, the Examiner reasonably construes that the selection threshold of Figure 11 is the “first predetermined load” and since the actuation threshold is not associated with an actuation event, it is ignored, and the system continues to track the finger even above the actuation threshold, until an impulse-like increase of pressure is applied to the GUI object 310 and it is utilized to “treat it as an actuation event.” See Poupyrev, Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 17 paras. 98, 119. It is this impulse-like increase in pressure that constitutes the actuation event and thus meets the claimed “set a second load higher than the first predetermined load” as recited in claim 1. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Poupyrev teaches or suggests the limitation of “set a second load higher than the first predetermined load,” as recited in claim 1, by the embodiment of Figures 5(a)-(c) or alternatively, by the embodiment of Figure 11. 3. Impermissible Hindsight Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination is based on impermissible hindsight reasoning. Appeal Br, 8. Specifically, Appellant argues, that the “impulse-like increase of pressure” recited in paragraph 98 of Poupyrev corresponds to “the user quickly presses and releases the GUI object” whereas the “additional step for confirming the completion of actuating operation” recited in paragraph 87 of Poupyrev corresponds to confirming releasing after the GUI object is pushed (i.e., decrease of pressure). Id. Appellant argues that it is impossible to use these conflicting examples in combination. Id. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument for the reasons set forth in detail supra. We further do not agree that the confirmation recited in paragraph 87 is confirming releasing of the finger. Paragraph 87 refers to the confirmation threshold which confirms actuation after the impulse-like increase in pressure that actually constitutes the actuation event. See supra. The reason for the confirmation threshold is to confirm the actuation event to “avoid accidental actuation of the GUI objects”--not to confirm release of the finger. See supra; see also Fig. 11 and paras. 119-120. Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 18 4. Does Poupyrev teach the disputed quoted limitations regarding controlling drive of the tactile sensation-providing unit and setting set the second load? Appellant argues that Poupyrev’s Figure 11 does not teach or suggest any one of the following claimed features: when the touch object is sliding on the touch face, to control drive of the tactile sensation providing unit such that a tactile sensation of sliding is provided to the touch object without providing a tactile sensation of pushing even with the load detection unit detecting the pressure load changing from a state failing to satisfy a first predetermined load to a state satisfying the first predetermined load, . . . to set a second load higher than the first predetermined load on the basis of the pressure load detected by the load detection unit when the touch object stops sliding on the touch face, . . . after the second load is set, to control drive of the tactile sensation providing unit such that the tactile sensation of pushing is provided to the touch object when, without the touch object being removed from the touch face, the load detection unit detects the pressure load changing from a state failing to satisfy the second load to a state satisfying the second load. See Appeal Br. 6. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appellant’s arguments are largely conclusory and fail to address the Examiner’s factual findings. Appellant argues that in Poupyrev, if the user’s finger enters the GUI object with pressure below the actuation threshold and then the pressure exceeds the actuation threshold during sliding, an actuation event is Appeal 2020-003255 Application 13/392,858 19 recognized even when the user's finger is sliding. Id. Appellant argues that this is clearly different from the invention according to claim 1. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We addressed in detail how Figure 11 teaches the actuation event being triggered at the confirmation threshold and not at the actuation threshold. See supra. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 3 and 5 not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 6. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5 103(a) Poupyrev 1, 3, 5 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED