Ex Parte Cherkasov et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201613434550 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/434,550 03/29/2012 Dmitriy Sergeyevich Cherkasov 82981661 5904 22879 HP Tnr 7590 12/02/2016 EXAMINER 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 SCHNIREL, ANDREW B FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2016 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 y vonne.bailey @ hp. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DMITRIY SERGEYEVICH CHERKASOV and JOHN P. McCARTHY Appeal 2015-007940 Application 13/434,550 Technology Center 2600 Before THU A. DANG, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4—13, 16, and 21—27. App. Br. 1. Claims 3, 14, 15, and 17—20 are canceled. Claims Appx. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 26, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed August 27, 2015, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed July 2, 2015, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed November 3, 2014, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed March 29, 2012, “Spec.”) for their respective Appeal 2015-007940 Application 13/434,550 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to an input device and sensor to detect hand gestures. See Abstract. INVENTION Claims 1,9, and 26 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 9, which is reproduced below 9. A method of a computing device comprising: receiving, from a first sensor, a first input signal responsive to detection, by the first sensor, of repositioning by a hand gesture of an input module along an axis; receiving, from a second sensor, a second input signal responsive to detection, by the second sensor, of a touch gesture across a touch sensitive surface of the input module; and identifying, by the computing device, a combination input command for the computing device based on a combination of the first input signal and the second input signal. References and Rejections 1. Claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9-11, 22, and 25—27 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hyun (US 2007/0020992 Al, pub. Jan. 25, 2007). Final Act. 2—13. 2. Claims 8, 12, 13, 16, 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hyun and Kim (US 2009/0197635 Al, pub. Aug. 6, 2009). Final Act. 14—20. details. 2 Appeal 2015-007940 Application 13/434,550 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4—13, 16, and 21—27 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellants identified reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5—10. Claims 1,2,4—7,9-11,22, and 25-27: Anticipation by Hyun In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds Hyun discloses a second housing (Element 20), the repositioning of which is sensed by a first sensor and results in a change of operational mode of the device. Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds the signal from this first sensor is the claimed first input signal. Id. The Examiner finds this first input signal is equivalent to the claimed sensing of a hand gesture of an input mode. Id. The Examiner finds Hyun discloses a touch-screen (Element 212) the touching of which is detected as a second input signal. Id. The Examiner finds the claimed combination input is 3 Appeal 2015-007940 Application 13/434,550 disclosed by the input of the second sensor being a function of the device mode as set by the first sensor. Id. at 8. In the Appeal Brief, Appellants contend that Hyun does not disclose “identifying, by the computing device, a combination input command for the computing device based on a combination of the first input signal and the second input signal,” as recited in independent Claim 9. App. Br. 8. Appellants agree that repositioning the second housing 20, which the Examiner finds to be the “first input signal,” sets the mode of Hyun’s portable terminal. App. Br. 8. However, Appellants argue setting the mode depends only on the “first input signal,” but does not depend on any “second input signal.” Id. Appellants further argue that touching Hyun’s touch screen results in an input signal, but Hyun does not teach that this touch-based input signal is combined with any other signal so as to form a “combination input command.” Id. Appellants argue, rather, once Hyun’s terminal is set to a particular mode, a touch-input produces a signal that is individually processed. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner points out Hyun discloses an input from a third keypad is interpreted as a different input depending upon whether the device is open in a first or second mode. Ans. 22. Appellants reply Hyun does not disclose a “combination of the ‘first input signal’ and the ‘second input signal’.” Reply Br. 4. As Appellants concede, in Hyun, once the terminal is set to a particular mode, a touch-input produces a signal that is individually processed (see App. Br. 8). We find that this is substantially the same as Appellants’ 4 Appeal 2015-007940 Application 13/434,550 disclosure that “even though the position data and the touch data are shared in parallel, they are received by the controller sequentially.” Spec., 126. Moreover, we find Appellants’ algorithm in Figure 5 substantially tracks the Examiners findings regarding Hyun’s disclosure. Appellant argues Claims 9—11 and 25—27 as a group in view of independent Claim 9. See App. Br. 5, 8. Appellant contends independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2, 4—7, and 22 are allowable in view of the arguments advanced in favor of Claim 9. Id. at 9. Appellant contends dependent Claims 8, 12, 16, 21, 23, and 24 are allowable in view of the arguments advanced in favor of independent Claim 9. Id. On this record, we are not persuaded of error with respect to Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11,22, and 25-27. Claims 8,12,13,16,21,23, and 24: Obviousness over Hyun and Kim. Appellants argue Claims 8, 12, 16, 21, 23, and 24 are allowable because their base claims distinguish over Hyun. App. Br. 9. As discussed above, we are not persuaded of error. Claim 13: Obviousness over Hyun and Kim. Appellants argue Claim 13 is allowable because its base claim distinguishes over Hyun. App. Br. 9. As discussed above, we are not persuaded of error. Appellants further contend Kim discloses a left-tilt action applied to a mobile device results in an action equivalent to a left-click of a mouse, but such action is not equivalent to a re-positioning of a cursor. Id. at 10. The Examiner finds Kim teaches “The user input unit 130 generates 5 Appeal 2015-007940 Application 13/434,550 input data responsive to user manipulation of an associated input device or devices. Examples of such devices include a keypad, a dome switch, a touchpad (e.g., static pressure/ capacitance), a touch screen panel, a jog wheel and a jog switch.” Ans. 25 (citing Kim, 1145). The Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that moving a finger on a touch screen would be used to reposition a pointer on a screen. Id. Appellants argue a “person of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand that a touch screen panel would not include a pointer rendered on a user interface.” Reply Br. 7. We are not persuaded of error. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9—11, 22, and 25—27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is AFFIRMED. The rejection of Claims 8, 12, 13, 16, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation