Ex Parte Cherkasov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13434550 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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