Ex Parte Durham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2017

13840963 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2017)

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