Ex Parte Dicker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 9, 2018

12037848 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2018)

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. 12/037,848 02/26/2008 George R. Dicker 106842019200 (P6159US1) 4576 69753 7590 01/11/2018 APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 EXAMINER SITTA, GRANT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2018 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): EOfficeL A @ mofo. com PatentDocket @ mofo. com pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEORGE R. DICKER, MARCEL VAN OS, RICHARD WILLIAMSON, and CHRIS BLUMENBERG Appeal 2016-002567 Application 12/037,848 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and MATTHEW J. MCNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—54. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-002567 Application 12/037,848 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to simulation of multi-point gestures with a single pointing device. Claims 1 and 11, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: I. A system for simulating multi-point input on a multipoint sensor panel, the system comprising: a display for displaying a representation of the multi point input; a single pointing user input device; and a device simulator, the device simulator configured to receive an input from the single pointing user input device and convert it into a multi-point input according to predefined conversion rules, the multi-point input simulating multiple touch events occurring simultaneously at different positions on the multi-point sensor panel. II. The system of claim 1, wherein the multi-point input is multi-touch input, and the multi-point sensor panel is a multi- touch sensor panel. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Imaizumi US 6,236,389 B1 May 22,2001 Leland US 2005/0219210 A1 Oct. 6, 2005 Esenther US 2007/0257891 A1 Nov. 8, 2007 REJECTIONS Claims 11, 27, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite. Claims 1—10, 12—26, 28—37, and 39—54 stand rejected under 2 Appeal 2016-002567 Application 12/037,848 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leland, in view of Imaizumi. Claims 11, 27, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leland, in view of Imaizumi, and further in view of Esenther. ANALYSIS Claims 11, 27, and 38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph The Examiner asserts claim 11 is indefinite because it recites that the multi-point sensor panel is a multi-touch sensor panel, creating ambiguity on whether Appellants are referring to the usage (i.e., hardware) or the simulation (Ans. 3). Appellants argue that based on the Specification, paragraph 17, it is clear that in claim 1 “multi-point” could refer to the simulator representations of fingerprints (i.e., touch) or fingerprints in proximity (i.e., without touching), and thus, claim 11 further limits “multi-point” to “multi- touch”, thereby excluding representations of fingerprints in proximity (App. Br. 7). We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that claim 11 refers to the simulation and limiting the simulation to touch representations. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, of claim 11 and for the same reason, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 27 and 38. 3 Appeal 2016-002567 Application 12/037,848 Claims 1—54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Rejection of claims 1—54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue that Imaizumi is completely silent as to multi-point input or gestures (App. Br. 9). According to Appellants, the comers of a trimming frame do not represent or teach multi-point input, particularly multi-point input that simulates multiple touch events occurring simultaneously at different positions on the multi-point sensor panel (App. Br. 9). Appellants further argue that Leland is directed to helping disabled individuals use handheld devices by processing signals from a standard single-point device such as a mouse to simulate user manipulation of a touchscreen (App. Br. 9-10). According to Appellants, standard pointing devices, such as a trackball or mouse, are presumably used because such devices may be easier for a disabled person to manipulate than a touchscreen (App. Br. 10). Appellants conclude that the purposes of Leland would not be served at all if combined with the alleged multi-point teachings of Imaizumi because multi point inputs are more complex and involve a greater degree of dexterity than conventional single-point devices (App. Br. 10). Appellants further assert that multi-point teachings would render Leland inoperable for its intended purpose, and thus, Leland actually teaches away from multi-point input (App. Br. 10). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds that Leland teaches, “a mechanism to enable alternate pointing devices for limited form factor computing platforms, while supporting existing 4 Appeal 2016-002567 Application 12/037,848 applications and not requiring revision of the application to support the new device” (Leland, para. 16) and “there is provided a method of enabling a peripheral pointing device on a handheld computing device having a touchscreen and an operating system responsive to taps on the touch screen” (Ans. 7—8; Leland, para. 18). The Examiner also finds that Leland teaches receiving, at the handheld device, a peripheral pointing device signal and upon determining that the received peripheral pointing device signal is a click signal, reading a pointer tracking memory to determine a pointer location and providing the handheld computing device operating system with a simulated tap at the determined pointer location (Ans. 8, citing para. 18). The Examiner further finds that Imaizumi teaches inputting via a trackball and a key which enables a disabled person in providing a trimming operation (Ans. 8). The Examiner relies on Imaizumi’s teaching of using a trackball and a mouse to a region of an image to designate a trimming region (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the purpose of both Imaizumi and Leland is to provide a quick designating means by a single input device (Ans. 8). With respect to Appellants’ argument regarding the added complexity by the combination of the teachings we note that our reviewing Court held that “[although statements limiting the function or capability of a prior art device require fair consideration, simplicity of the prior art is rarely a characteristic that weighs against obviousness of a more complicated device with added function.” In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998); also see MPEP § 2143.01 V; Ans. 9. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—54. 5 Appeal 2016-002567 Application 12/037,848 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 27, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, is reversed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6