Ex Parte Durham et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 6, 201713840963 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2017) 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. 13/840,963 03/15/2013 Lenitra M. Durham P53547 7110 88032 7590 09/08/2017 TnrHanTPT aw T T C EXAMINER 12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401 Silver Spring, MD 20904 WATKO, JULIE ANNE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/08/2017 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): info@jordaniplaw.com admin @jordaniplaw.com inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LENITRA M. DURHAM and DAVID M. DURHAM Appeal 2017-003781 Application 13/840,963 Technology Center 2600 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—24, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention According to the Specification, the invention “relate[s] to the use of layered and split keyboards in three-dimensional (3D) environments to 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Intel Corporation. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-003781 Application 13/840,963 enhance the interactivity of mobile devices.” Spec. 12.2 The Specification explains that “[s]ystems and methods may provide for displaying a plurality of keyboards ... via a screen of a mobile device and identifying a selected keyboard in the plurality of keyboards based at least in part on a first user interaction with an area behind the mobile device,” and “an appearance of the selected keyboard may be modified” based on user interaction. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as follows: 1. A mobile device comprising: a screen; and logic to, display a plurality of keyboards in a three- dimensional (3D) environment via the screen, wherein the 3D environment appears to be located at a distance from a rear of the screen; identify a selected keyboard in the plurality of keyboards based at least in part on a first user interaction with the 3D environment; and modify an appearance of the selected keyboard. Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following prior art: 2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the Specification, filed March 15, 2013; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action, mailed August 12, 2015; “Adv. Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed December 31, 2015; “Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed May 10, 2016; and “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 2, 2016. 2 Appeal 2017-003781 Application 13/840,963 Hoda US 2012/0306740 A1 Dec. 6, 2012 US 2014/0375531 A1 Dec. 25, 2014Latypov et al. (“Latypov”) (filed June 24, 2013) The Rejection on Appeal Claims 1—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoda and Latypov. Final Act. 2—6. We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1—24 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding Examiner error. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 2—9), Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and Answer (Ans. 2—6). We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments. The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1—24 “Display a Plurality of Keyboards” in a 3D Environment “Located at a Distance from a Rear of the Screen” Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 because Hoda and Latypov fail to disclose “displaying] a plurality of keyboards in a three-dimensional (3D) environment via the screen, wherein the 3D environment appears to be located at a distance from a rear of the screen,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). In particular, Appellants contend that Hoda’s screen “is a two-dimensional environment (2D) and not a 3D environment” and “the keyboards disclosed by Hoda are all displayed on the screen, i.e., in two dimensions.” Id. at 11 (emphasis omitted). In addition, Appellants contend that “Latypov simply discloses a purported 3D environment being created between the device and ANALYSIS 3 Appeal 2017-003781 Application 13/840,963 the eyes of a user” of a head-mounted virtual-reality device. Id. at 12 (emphasis omitted). Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because “claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” during examination proceedings. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner reasons that the phrase “display . . . via the screen” in claim 1 broadly but reasonably encompasses “display on a screen.” Ans. 3 (citing Spec. 19); see Adv. Act. 2 (citing Spec. 19); see also Spec. Tflf 5, 9, Fig. 1. The Examiner also reasons that “it is not the screen that is recited in claim 1 as having three dimensions” but instead “it is the environment which is recited in claim 1 as being three-dimensional.” Ans. 2; see Final Act. 2—3; Adv. Act. 2. Further, the Examiner finds that Hoda discloses three keyboards displayed at “various keyboard depths” in a 3D environment. Final Act. 2—3, 8. In particular, the Examiner determines that Hoda discloses (1) “a hiragana keyboard” displayed “a small distance from the rear of the screen,” (2) “an uppercase alphanumeric keyboard” displayed “a medium distance from the rear of the screen,” and (3) “a lowercase alphanumeric keyboard” displayed “a large distance from the rear of the screen.” Ans. 2; see Hoda 60, 76—95, Figs. 4A-4C, Fig. 7 (depth gage 620), Figs. 8A—8C, Fig. 9. The Examiner also finds that there are “two dimensions parallel to the screen,” i.e., “the vertical and horizontal directions,” and that the third dimension corresponds to the distance from the rear of the screen, i.e., “distance k” in Figure 9. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2—3; see Adv. Act. 2. Hence, the Examiner determines that “[j]ust as Appellant’s [sic] 3D environment is 4 Appeal 2017-003781 Application 13/840,963 displayed on a screen, Hoda’s 3D environment is displayed on a screen.” Ans. 3. In addition, the Examiner finds that Latypov teaches or suggests a 3D environment appearing to a user as located at a distance from the rear of a screen. Ans. 5—6; see Final Act. 3; Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner explains that Latypov discloses a rear-facing camera. Ans. 5 (citing Latypov 14, 41, Fig. 4); see Adv. Act. 2 (citing Latypov 41, Figs. 4—5). Latypov’s rear facing camera recognizes the user’s hand position and tracks the user’s hand movements when manipulating virtual objects in the virtual space at the rear of the screen. Latypov Tflf 14, 25, 41, Figs. 4—5; see Ans. 5—6; Adv. Act. 2. For instance, Latypov instructs that a free “hand[] can be used for a more natural manipulating objects of virtual space.” Latypov 114. Further, the Examiner reasons that in Latypov the distance between the user’s eyes and the screen “is comparable to the length of a baseball cap bill” and “occupied by lenses,” thus “leaving negligible room for natural hand movements to occur in this space.” Adv. Act. 2. Hence, the Examiner determines that in Latypov the “hand movements occur at a distance from the rear of the screen . . . just as the 3D-environment-interacting hand movements of Hoda occur at a distance k from the rear of the screen.” Id. Appellants did not file a Reply Brief. Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s claim interpretation. Appellants have not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. “Identify a Selected Keyboard” Based on “User Interaction with the 3D Environment” Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Hoda and Latypov fail to disclose “identifying] a selected keyboard in the 5 Appeal 2017-003781 Application 13/840,963 plurality of keyboards based at least in part on a first user interaction with the 3D environment,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 11—13 (emphasis omitted). More specifically, Appellants assert that because Hoda fails to disclose a 3D environment, “it follows that Hoda does not disclose identifying a selected keyboard in the plurality of keyboards based at least in part on a first user interaction with the 3D environment” according to claim 1. Id. at 11—12 (emphasis omitted). Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error because, as discussed above, Hoda discloses a plurality of keyboards displayed in a 3D environment via a screen. Further, the Examiner finds that Hoda’s 3D environment allows a user to “virtually grab” a particular key from a particular keyboard by extending a hand (1) “a small distance from the rear of the screen” to reach “a hiragana keyboard,” (2) “a medium distance from the rear of the screen” to reach “an uppercase alphanumeric keyboard,” and (3) “a large distance from the rear of the screen” to reach “a lowercase alphanumeric keyboard.” Ans. 2; see Hoda H 78—103, Figs. 8A—8C, Fig. 9, Figs. 10A—10B. As Hoda explains, “the user can easily change the input mode among hiragana, alphabet, etc. by a single hand by changing the distance k from the camera to the hand.” Hoda 1116, Fig. 9. Consequently, Hoda teaches or suggests “identifying] a selected keyboard in the plurality of keyboards based at least in part on a first user interaction with the 3D environment,” as recited in claim 1. Summary for Independent Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness based on Hoda and Fatypov. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. 6 Appeal 2017-003781 Application 13/840,963 Independent Claims 5,13, and 21 and Dependent Claims 2-4,6-12,14—20, and 22-24 Appellants do not argue patentability separately for independent claims 5, 13, and 21 or dependent claims 2—4, 6—12, 14—20, and 22—24. Br. 10-13. Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—24 for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—24. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation