Ex Parte Ajmera et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12779061 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121779,061 05/13/2010
22879 7590 05/03/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rahul Ajmera
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82259999 7689
EXAMINER
LI, LIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAHUL AJMERA,
ANBUMANI SUBRAMANIAN, and
SRIGANESH MADHVANATH
Appeal2014-003833
Application 12/779,061
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-21, all the pending claims
in the present application. Claims 15 is canceled. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to detecting the gesture
performed by a user of an input device and determining a distance of the
input device from a predetermined location. See Abstract.
Appeal2014-003833
Application 12/779,061
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of processing a gesture performed by a user of
an input device, the method comprising:
detecting the gesture;
determining a distance of the input device from a
predetermined location, the detected distance being for
disambiguating the gesture; and
determining a user command on the detected gesture and
the determined distance.
Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1
RI. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Boillot (US 2007/0121097 Al,
May 31, 2007) (see Final Act. 4-11 ); and
R2. Claim 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boillot in combination with various
other prior art (see Final Act. 12-18).
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-3, 6--9, 12-14, 16, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S. C. § 102(b) over Boillot
Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Boillot
discloses determining a distance of the input device from a predetermined
location, the detected distance being for disambiguating the gesture, as set
forth in claim 1?
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
1st and 2nd paragraphs (see Ans. 18).
2
Appeal2014-003833
Application 12/779,061
Appellants contend "[a]s explained in App[ellants'] specification, the
same gesture made at different distances can mean different things" (App.
Br. 11) and "Boillot merely teaches that a gesture alone, e.g., raising a finger
in the touchless sensing space, can control a cursor object. There are no
teachings or suggestion in Boillot of considering both the gesture made and
the distance from a predetermined location at which that gesture is made"
(id. at 12). Appellants further contend that "Boillot only teaches 'range
detection' to determine the gesture being made" (App. Br. 13).
The Examiner finds that Boillot discloses "[t]he term 'range
detection' can be defined as identifying a distance, location, or movement of
an object" (Ans. 21, citing Boillot i-f 28). The Examiner further finds that
Boillot discloses "the touchless sensing unit 110 not only detects x-y
coordinate information, but also detects z coordinate information, wherein
the z coordinate information represents the detected distance" (Ans. 21-22).
For example, Boillot specifically discloses "[t]he term 'range
detection' can be defined as identifying a distance, location, or movement of
an object" (i-f 28). Boillot further discloses that "the transducers have broad
illumination which can capture signal reflections within a general plane, or
three dimensional space" (i-f 54). In other words, Boillot discloses
identifying a distance and capturing signals in three dimensional space.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's interpretation that Boillot detects z
coordinate information, wherein the z coordinate information represents the
detected distance between an object, such as raised finger, and a keyboard
(see Ans. 21-22).
However, Appellants emphasize that in the claimed invention "the
same gesture made at different distance can mean different things" (App. Br.
3
Appeal2014-003833
Application 12/779,061
11; see also Reply Br. 4) (i.e., the detected distance beingfor
disambiguating the gesture), and for determining "what command a user
intends to enter" (Reply Br. 5; see also Spec. 3: 14--15). We find that the
ordinary and usual meaning of "disambiguating" is establishing a single
semantic interpretation for. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, p.
359 (9th Edition 1990). We find that this dictionary definition is consistent
with Appellants' Specification which states that "the same gesture can have
different interpretations when made at different distances from the system"
(Spec. 8:17-18).
Although supra the Examiner interprets Boillot' s z coordinate
information for disambiguating gestures (Ans. 21-22), the Examiner fails to
cite where precisely in Boillot such distance information disambiguates such
gesture, i.e., provides a single interpretation therefor. At best, it appears that
Boillot uses the coordinates of an input device, i.e., finger, to control a
cursor object, e.g., positioning the cursor on the display (see i-fi-136-37) and
determining an accurate arrival time for the cursor (see i1 42). However, the
Examiner has not established that Boillot uses the distance information to
disambiguate a gesture, as required by the claims. Boillot merely appears to
use the input device to move a cursor on the display, and the Examiner has
not shown that in Boillot the same gesture can have different interpretations
when made at different distances from the system.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Boillot anticipates
the detected distance being for disambiguating the gesture, as recited in each
of the independent claims. Because we agree with at least one of the
arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of
Appellants' other arguments.
4
Appeal2014-003833
Application 12/779,061
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection
of claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-14, 16, 19, and 20.
Rejection of claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner has not found that any of the other references of record
cure the deficiencies of Boillot noted supra. Accordingly, we also will not
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 18,
and 21.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14 and 16-21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5