Ex Parte Cridland et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 17, 2016

12919279 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/919,279 02/22/2011 22879 7590 03/21/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR William Robert Cridland 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. 82242251 5040 EXAMINER VALDEZ,PATRICKF ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2016 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 WILLIAM ROBERT CRIDLAND, GEROLD KEITH SHELTON, MICHAEL JAMES SHELTON, and STEVEN HAROLD TAYLOR Appeal2014-005752 Application 12/919 ,2 79 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-20. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-005752 Application 12/919 ,2 79 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: translating a first position of an object relative to a touch pad into a second position within a selected fixed size input area of a plurality of fixed size input areas; and selecting the fixed input area responsive to an indication of a new input area. APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 6-9, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Cheng (US 7,190,353 B2; Mar. 13, 2007). Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in rejecting under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) claims 4, 10, and 18 as obvious in view of Cheng and Pallakoff (US 2005/0012723 Al; Jan. 20, 2005), claims 5, 11, and 19 as obvious in view of Cheng and Forcier (US 6,502, 114 B 1; Dec. 31, 2002), and claim 13 as obvious in view of Cheng and Rehm (US 2006/0071915 Al; Apr. 6, 2006). ANALYSIS Appellants argue "Cheng does not disclose translating 'into a second position within a selected fixed size input area of a plurality of fixed size input areas,' as recited in claim 1." App. Br. 8. Specifically, Appellants argue Cheng teaches a touchscreen having input areas that are adaptive and varying in size and shape, not of "fixed size" as claimed. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Cheng Figs. 2A-3A, col. 6, 1. 66-col. 8, 1. 8). Further, 2 Appeal2014-005752 Application 12/919 ,2 79 Appellants argue a person of ordinary skill would interpret the claimed "'fixed input area' as being an area that is adjacent to the touchpad" (App. Br. 9 (citing Spec. i-fi-18, 20)), in contrast to Cheng's input area that is layered on top of the display area of a touchscreen (App. Br. 8-10). 1 We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive and agree with the Examiner that Cheng discloses each limitation of claim 1. We disagree with Appellants' interpretation of "fixed input area" because Appellants mischaracterize the cited portion of the Specification. App. Br. 9 (citing Spec. i1 8). The cited portion of the Specification describes four input areas that are adjacent to one another; the Specification does not describe or define an input area as an area adjacent to the touch pad as Appellants contend. Spec. i18 ("Display 130 is larger than touchpad 110, and comprises multiple adjacent areas. For ease of illustration, FIG. 1 shows four adjacent areas (140-1, 140-2, 140-3, and 140-4) .... "). As the Examiner finds, Cheng discloses an input area segmented into three cells-two square cells having lengths 40 pixels and one rectangular cell having sides of length 40 pixels 1 Appellants' Reply Brief includes the argument that Cheng's disclosure of a "touchscreen" fails to disclose a "touch pad" as claimed. Reply Br. 2. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds Cheng's "touchscreen" discloses the claimed touch pad (Final Act. 3, 6 ("Examiner submits that a touch screen is equivalent to a touch pad")), and Appellants' Appeal Brief does not contest that finding. As an argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief without a showing of good cause, Appellants have waived this argument. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b)(2). Further, Appellants offer no evidence to support the argument that "the plain language of 'touch pad' defies equivalency to a touch screen," and we agree with the Examiner that a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claimed touch pad includes the touchscreen disclosed in Cheng. See Final Act. 3 (citing Cheng col. 6, 11. 29-33, 40-44). 3 Appeal2014-005752 Application 12/919 ,2 79 and 80 pixels. See Ans. 4--5 (citing Cheng Fig. lB-lD, col. 6, 11. 14--20, 36- 39). Having reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of each of Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we agree with the Examiner that Cheng discloses the invention of claimed 1, including the fixed size input areas, and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings regarding claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-12, 14, and 16-20, for which Appellants do not raise independent arguments. Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13, which depends from claim 8 and additionally recites "displaying a visual indicator that marks the first input area." Appellants argue claim 13 "corresponds to a visual indicator that is formed on the fixed size input area, not as boundaries between a touchpad in conjunction with a sketch pad like that detailed in Rehm." App. Br. 13. We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive as it fails to address what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the combination of references, as cited by the Examiner. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, (Fed. Cir. 1986) (nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that "displaying a visual indicator that marks the first input area" would have been obvious in view of Cheng's disclosures of input areas, among the other limitations of claim 8, and known visual indicators used in the art as evidenced by Rehm. Accordingly, we adopt as our own the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reasoning in the rejection of claim 13 and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. 4 Appeal2014-005752 Application 12/919 ,2 79 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-14 and 16-20 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5