Ex Parte GannonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 201712952846 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation