Apaar Tuli

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 13, 2019

13053888 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 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.
13/053,888 03/22/2011 Apaar Tuli 042933/402964 9069
10949 7590 09/13/2019
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
OKEBATO, SAHLU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2019 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte APAAR TULI
____________________

Appeal 2017-010163
Application 13/053,888
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1–19, and 21–32. Claim 20 was previously canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies
Oy. Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2017-010163
Application 13/053,888

2
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, embodiments of the invention “relate
generally to user interface technology,” and particularly, to “a method and
apparatus for providing sight independent activity reports responsive to a
touch gesture.” Spec. ¶ 1.

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:

providing an application having activity associated
therewith;

receiving an indication of a pulse gesture being
performed by at least two fingers, wherein the pulse gesture
comprises a touch event with at least two fingers held close
together from initiation of the pulse gesture until recognition of
the pulse gesture;

determining, in response to receipt of the indication of
the pulse gesture, a status with respect to the activity associated
with the application that occurred prior to receipt of the
indication of the pulse gesture; and

in response to receipt of the indication of the pulse
gesture, causing provision of haptic feedback of an activity
report that provides information relating to the status that was
determined with respect to the activity associated with the
application that occurred prior to receipt of the indication of the
pulse gesture, wherein causing provision of haptic feedback
comprises causing provision of haptic feedback having one or
more characteristics that are indicative of the status of the
activity associated with the application that occurred prior to
receipt of the indication of the pulse gesture.

Appeal 2017-010163
Application 13/053,888

3
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1–19, 21, and 24–32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Choe et al. (US 2010/0004033; published Jan. 7, 2010, hereafter
“Choe”), and Burrough et al. (US 2010/0156818 A1; published June 24,
2010, hereafter “Burrough”).
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Choe,
Burrough, and Migos et al. (US 2012/0030568 A1; published Feb. 2, 2012,
hereafter “Migos”).
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Choe,
Burrough, and Aguilar (US 2011/0107272 A1; published May 5, 2011
hereafter “Aguilar”).

II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
finding the combination of Choe and Burrough teaches or suggests a method
comprising the steps of:
“receiving an indication of a pulse gesture” that “comprises a touch
event with at least two fingers held close together from initiation of the
pulse gesture until recognition of the pulse gesture,” and
“in response to receipt of the indication of the pulse gesture, causing
provision of haptic feedback of an activity report that provides information
relating to the status that was determined with respect to the activity
associated with the application that occurred prior to receipt of the
indication.” Claim 1 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2017-010163
Application 13/053,888

4
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Choe
1. Choe discloses a mobile terminal that generates haptic effect with an
intensity or pattern corresponding to the type and importance of an event
occurred therein, and the user can identify the event based on the haptic
effect. Choe, Abstract. A proximity sensor is installed which detects an
object (such as the user’s finger) approaching the display module, and which
outputs a signal in response. Id. at ¶ 76. The controller may control the
haptic module to generate a haptic effect in response to the user scrolling
through a list displayed on the display module. Id. at ¶ 87. In one example,
the controller may control the haptic module to generate a haptic effect in a
display region area corresponding to the location and the number of
messages currently being displayed in the display region. Id. at ¶ 90.
Similarly, the controller may control the haptic module to generate a haptic
effect to the location and the number of emails currently being displayed.
Id. at ¶ 91. The controller may also control the haptic module to generate a
haptic effect indicating the importance of a scheduled event, wherein the
user can recognize the arrival of the scheduled time and the importance of
the scheduled event based on a number of haptic effects generated by the
mobile terminal. Id. at ¶ 94.
Burrough
2. Burrough discloses a method which comprises the steps of identifying
a multi-touch gesture based on data from a multi-touch sensing device, and
providing an appropriate multi-haptic response. Burrough, Abstract. In
Appeal 2017-010163
Application 13/053,888

5
Burrough, the apparatus is provided which includes a touch pad having a
touch sensitive surface and a plurality of haptic feedback devices operatively
coupled to the touch sensitive surface to provide tactile feedback at each of
the at least two different locations on the touch sensitive surface in response
to the multi-touch signal. Id. at ¶ 10. In an embodiment, one type of signal
can be generated when at least two fingers are close together. Id. at ¶ 54.

IV. ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made, but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2016). On the record before us, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Appellant contends that the cited references do not teach or suggest
“the utilization of a pulse gesture to inject a query and to then receive an
activity report, on demand, in response.” App. Br. 8. In particular,
Appellant contends “Choe discloses the provision of haptic feedback in
response to certain events, such as the receipt of a message.” Id. However,
Appellant concedes that Choe also discloses that the haptic feedback may be
provided “in response to certain cursor movements (e.g., scrolling) or the
detection of certain object movements (e.g., the approach of a finger).” Id.
Further, according to Appellant, “the haptic feedback of Choe is not
of an activity report” as claimed. Id. at 9. That is, “the haptic feedback of
Choe is based on a characteristic of an event, but, in any event, is not of an
Appeal 2017-010163
Application 13/053,888

6
activity report” as claimed. Id. Similarly, Appellant contends that “the
feedback provided by Burrough provides guidance to a user interacting with
a touch screen, but is not of an activity report” as claimed. Id. Although
Appellant concedes that “the activity associated with [Burrough’s] map
application is responsive to the touch gesture,” Appellant contends that
Burrough’s activity is “not an activity that ‘occurred prior to receipt of the
indication of the pulse gesture.’” Id.
Appellant then contends that the “pulse gesture” of claim 1 “requires
at least two fingers to be held close together throughout the gesture.” Id. at
10. Although Appellant concedes that Burrough discloses a gesture using
two fingers held close together, Appellant contends that Burrough discloses
“a pinching gesture” in which “the two fingers begin close together” but
“then spread apart for a pinch-out gesture” (or vise versa). Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
As an initial matter of claim construction, we give the claims, as
specifically recited, their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
While we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the
Specification, we, nonetheless, must not import limitations from the
Specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
Although Appellant contends that the cited references do not teach or
suggest “the utilization of a pulse gesture to inject a query and to then
receive an activity report, on demand, in response” (App. Br. 8), such
contention is not commensurate in scope with the recited language of the
Appeal 2017-010163
Application 13/053,888

7
claims. In particular, the claims do not require any injection of a “query” or
receiving “on demand.” Id.; see claim 1, for example.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that “the haptic
feedback of Choe is not of an activity report” as claimed because an “event .
. . is not of an activity report.” App. Br. 9. As the Examiner points out, “the
limitation[s] in the claim[s] such as ‘activity,’ ‘activity report’ and
‘application’ are very broad without further limiting a specific function.”
Final Rej. 20. Here, the Specification and claims do not provide any specific
definition for “activity report.” Instead, the Specification merely provides a
non-limiting example: “[t]he activity reports may typically be the result of a
status check associated with the application associated with the selectable
object . . . being performed by the feedback manager.” Spec. ¶ 55.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that Burrough’s
gesture using “two fingers held close together” is not a “pulse gesture” but
rather “a pinching gesture.” App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). The
Specification does not provide any specific definition for “pulse gesture,”
but states that “pulse gesture may be defined by the contact of at least two
fingers with the touch screen display, where the fingers are held close to
each other.” Spec. ¶ 28. The claims merely require that the fingers are
“held close together from initiation . . . until recognition” of the gesture.
Claim 1. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in view
of the Specification and claims, we conclude that claim 1 merely requires the
detection of a gesture comprising two fingers held close together until
recognition.
Choe discloses receiving an indication of a user’s finger approaching
the display module and outputting a signal in response. FF 1. In Choe, a
Appeal 2017-010163
Application 13/053,888

8
response includes a haptic response, such as, for example, a haptic effect
corresponding to a number of messages or a number of emails. Id. The
haptic effect can also indicate the importance of a scheduled event, and the
user can recognize the arrival of the scheduled time and the importance of
the scheduled event based on a number of haptic effects generated by the
mobile terminal. Id. That is, Choe discloses detecting an indication of a
gesture (which comprises movement of a user’s fingers), and providing
haptic responses, which comprise an indication of the number of messages
or emails (that was received/occurred prior to receipt of the gesture) and/or
which reflects the importance of the scheduled event (the event being
scheduled prior to receipt of the indication). We find no error with the
Examiner’s reliance on Choe for teaching and suggesting a steps of
“receiving” an indication of a gesture that comprises movement of fingers,
and “causing provision of haptic feedback of an activity report” with respect
to the activity “that occurred prior to receipt of the indication.” Claim 1.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that, different from the
claim invention, “Choe discloses the provision of haptic feedback in
response to certain events.” App. Br. 8. As Appellant concedes, Choe also
discloses that the haptic feedback may be provided “in response to certain
cursor movements (e.g., scrolling) or the detection of certain object
movements (e.g., the approach of a finger).” App. Br. 8. Given the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “activity report” in view of the Specification, we
find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that “activity report”
Appeal 2017-010163
Application 13/053,888

9
encompasses Choe’s haptic effect indicating the number of messages, emails
or importance of any event. Final Rej. 20–21.
Burrough discloses identifying a multi-touch gesture wherein haptic
feedbacks are provided in response to the multi-touch signal, the gesture
includes at least two fingers held close together. FF 2. Even Appellant
concedes that Burrough discloses a gesture using two fingers held close
together in “a pinching gesture” in which “the two fingers begin close
together.” App. Br. 10. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claims, we find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Burrough to
disclose and suggest “a pulse gesture” that comprises “a touch event with at
least two fingers held close together from initiation of the pulse gesture until
recognition of the pulse gesture” as claimed. Claim 1.
In view of the above, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding
and conclusion that the combination of Choe and Burrough teaches or at
least suggests the contested limitations of claim 1. Appellant does not
provide substantive arguments for independent claims 10 and 19 separate
from those for claim 1. App. Br. 11. Accordingly, we also affirm the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 10 and 19 over Choe and Burrough.
As for claims 2, 3, 11, and 12, although Appellant contends that Choe
fails to teach or suggest the limitations of the claims (App. Br. 11–13), we
are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Choe discloses a
haptic effect that “may represent the type, importance and name of an event
occurred.” Ans. 6; see also FF 1, Choe ¶ 78. Accordingly, we are
Appeal 2017-010163
Application 13/053,888

10
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 over
Choe and Burrough.
As to claims 24–26, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention
that Burrough “fails to teach or suggest that the touch event comprises a
static touch event.” App. Br. 13–14. Here, we find no error with the
Examiner’s reliance on Burrough to teach and suggest such “static touch.”
Final Rej. 15; see also FF 2.
As to claims 27, 29, and 31, although Appellant contends that
Burrough fails to teach or suggest “the receipt of one of a variety of different
pulse exit gesture” (App. Br. 14), we find no error with the Examiner’s
reliance on Burrough’s two finger gesture over the map and exiting by
moving the fingers apart, for teaching and suggesting the contested
limitation. Final Rej. 15–17; see also FF 2.
As to claims 28, 30, and 32, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
contention that “Burrough provides no teaching or suggestion that the
application for which the status is determined is dependent upon the
repetition of the pulse gesture.” App. Br. 15. As the Examiner finds,
Burrough discloses “generating zoom in and zoom out,” wherein “bringing
back the two fingers close together again read as repetition of the pulse
gesture.” Final Rej. 15–16 (emphasis omitted); see also FF 2.
As for claim 23, although Appellant contends that Aguilar fails to
teach or suggest a pulse gesture in which “the fingers are held next to each
other for a predetermined minimum amount of time” (App. Br. 13), we find
no error with the Examiner’s reliance the combination of Choe and
Burrough in view of Aguilar for teaching and suggesting the contested
limitation. Final Rej. 19. That is, we agree with the Examiner’s reliance on
Appeal 2017-010163
Application 13/053,888

11
the combination of Choe’s gesture comprising two fingers held next to each
other with Aguilar’s pressing of a selection for a predetermined amount of
time to teach and suggest the contested limitation. See FF 1.
Appellant does not provide substantive arguments for the other
rejected claims. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of the other
claims rejected over Choe and Burrough as well as claim 22 rejected over
Choe, Burrough, in further view of Migos.

V. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19, and 21–32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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