Ex Parte Gannon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2017

12952846 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 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.
12/952,846 11/23/2010 Aaron James Gannon 245193 (12729-888) 2446
29399 7590 03/10/2017
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (12729)
Global Patent Operation-Aviation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
TAYLOR JR, DUANE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2017 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AARON JAMES GANNON
Appeal 2016-004659
Application 12/952,8461
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by
Administrative Patent Judge SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Dissenting Opinion filed by
Administrative Patent Judge ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 4—16, and 18—23, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. Claims 2, 3, and 17 have been cancelled. Br. 6. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies GE Aviation Systems LLC as the real party in interest.
Br. 4.
Appeal 2016-004659
Application 12/952,846
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a system and
method for improving touch screen display use under vibration and
turbulence conditions. Spec. 11.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A vehicle control system comprising:
a first sensor configured to transmit a first signal relative
to a measured parameter of the vehicle;
a touch screen input and display system comprising:
a planar input and viewing surface having a
plurality of edges and a touch activated area configured to
generate a second signal relative to a manual input
received from a user; and
a bezel at least partially surrounding said surface
proximate at least some of said plurality of edges, said
bezel comprising:
a surface configured to engage one or more
fingers of one or more hands of a user, said surface
formed of an elastomeric material; and
a second sensor configured to:
determine an anchor point represented
by a number and placement of the one or
more fingers on said surface of said bezel;
measure a motion of said one or more
fingers relative to said bezel, said motion
caused by at least one of vibration, shock, and
turbulence; and
generate a third signal representing a
magnitude and direction of said motion; and
an input unit configured to:
receive the first signal, the second signal, and the
third signal;
relocate or resize the touch activated area based on
the first signal and the third signal to compensate for said
motion of said one or more fingers caused by at least one
of vibration, shock, and turbulence; and
2
Appeal 2016-004659
Application 12/952,846
adjust the second signal representing the manual
input in a direction opposite said motion of said one or
more fingers to compensate for said motion.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Westerman et al.
King et al.
Kawell et al.
Miller
Kim et al.
Gianelli
Suddreth et al.
US 6,323,846 B1
US 2006/0238517 Al
US 2007/0159466 Al
US 2009/0153438 Al
US 2010/0149124 Al
US 2011/0109576 Al
US 2012/0105335 Al
Nov. 27, 2001
Oct. 26, 2006
July 12, 2007
June 18, 2009
June 17, 2010
May 12, 2011
May 3, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 11—13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gianelli in view of
Kawell, Miller, King, and Kim. Final Act. 2—8.
Claims 5, 7—10, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gianelli in view of Kawell, Miller,
King, Kim, and Suddreth. Final Act. 8—9.
Claims 14 and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gianelli in view of Kawell, Miller, King, Kim, and
Westerman. Final Act. 9—11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
3
Appeal 2016-004659
Application 12/952,846
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding the pending claims.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s stated reason to combine the prior art
references—such as Kim—are conclusory and not supported by articulated
reasoning:
The Examiner attempts to support the conclusions of
obviousness based on the proposed combinations of the cited art
by merely stating that the proposed combinations would have
been obvious to achieve the features of the present application
(Office Action, pgs. 4-7). The Examiner’s statements are merely
conclusory statements that are not supportable in fact and do not
provide a sufficient reason for combining them. “It is not enough
to say that ... to do so would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill. Such circular reasoning is not sufficient-more is
needed to sustain an obviousness rejection.” In re Chaganti,
2014 WL 274514, *4 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Br. 26.
The Examiner finds Kim teaches “the second sensor configured to:
generate a third signal representing a magnitude and direction of said
motion; and an input unit configured to: receive the third signal.” Final Act.
7 (citing Kim 130) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kim with Ganelli
because the prior art references are analogous and to calculate a force vector
of the touch input:
Kim and Giannelli in combination above are considered to be
analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor
related to touch sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious
to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to modify the second sensor of Giannelli to include the
functionality of generating a third signal representing a
magnitude and direction of said motion; and an input unit
configured to: receive the third signal, as taught by King (note,
King f [0030] & Giannelli f [0036] are both related to
4
Appeal 2016-004659
Application 12/952,846
pressure/proximity sensing), in order to calculate a force vector
of the touch input (Kim, f [003 0]).
Id.
Rejections based on obviousness must be supported by “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006),
cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to provide
adequate reasoning to combine the specific teaching of Kim with the other
relied on references to support the legal conclusion of obviousness of
independent claim 1. The Examiner’s finding does not provides a sufficient
explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply the
teaching of Kim to the fingers placed on a bezel to measure “a magnitude
and direction of said motion” of the fingers relative to the bezel as required
by claim 1. Although Kim teaches measuring a force vector of a touch, the
Examiner has not provided any reason why the person of ordinary skill in
the art would have a reason to apply that teaching to measure the magnitude
and direction of the motion of fingers on the bezel. A rejection cannot be
based on “speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967).
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other
arguments.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 6 and
5
Appeal 2016-004659
Application 12/952,846
16, which recite limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed limitation
discussed above, and dependent claims 4, 11—13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22.
Moreover, because the Examiner has not shown that Suddreth or
Westerman cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of the
independent claims, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 5, 7—10, 14, 20, and 23 (Final Act. 8—11) for similar
reasons.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1, 4—16, and 18—23.
REVERSED
6
Appeal 2016-004659
Application 12/952,846
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AARON JAMES GANNON
Appeal 2016-004659
Application 12/952,846
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion reversing the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4—16, and 18—23. I respectfully disagree
with the majority’s conclusion that “[ajlthough Kim teaches measuring a
force vector of a touch, the Examiner has not provided any reason why the
person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to apply that teaching
to measure the magnitude and direction of the motion of fingers on the
bezel” (see supra).
The Examiner relied on Gianelli’s teaching of an aircraft touch screen
input and display unit which compensates for motion of fingers during
turbulence (paras. 77—83) (Final Act. 3). Gianelli expressly acknowledges
that detecting forces to adjust a display is well-known in the art through
7
Appeal 2016-004659
Application 12/952,846
capacitive or resistive detection of touch control areas (pars. 77—83). The
Examiner then relied on Miller for the articulated reason of measuring
motion of one or more fingers in relation to the bezel to adapt to sense
conditions and determine when the user is close to touching the bezel or to
sense when the user is in touch with the bezel (para. 17; Final Act. 5). The
Examiner relies on Kim for the teaching of determining the magnitude and
direction of the motion (para. 30) stating that both Kim and Gianelli are
related to pressure/proximity sensing and Kim provides the teaching for the
calculation of the force vector (para. 30; Final Act. 7). If anything, Kim
constitutes cumulative evidence since Gianelli already teaches detecting
forces as being well known in the art, and Kim merely provides support for
such an assertion by teaching calculating a force vector based on the
magnitude and direction of the force (para. 30).
In KSR, the Supreme Court held that “if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The Supreme Court has also
determined the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated
teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge
possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Id., at 418. The
skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at
421. Appellants have not presented any evidence demonstrating that the
modification would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, at 418).
8
Appeal 2016-004659
Application 12/952,846
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion
reversing the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4—16, and 18—23.
9