Ex Parte Harris

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2017

12832962 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 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.
12/832,962 07/08/2010 Jerry G. Harris B1049E2 5467
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
SIDDIQUI, MD S AIFUL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2017 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JERRY G. HARRIS
Appeal 2016-000450
Application 12/832,9621
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3—9, 11—21, and 23, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Technology
The application relates to a touch screen device with “a natural media
painting application” in which “[vjarious gestures defined by a combination
of [finger] touch and stylus manipulation may be mapped to functions or
modes of the application.” Abstract.
1 Appellant says the real party in interest is Adobe Systems Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-000450
Application 12/832,962
Illustrative Claims
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method, comprising:
using a computer to perform:
detecting a touch on the surface of a tablet device;
coincident with detecting the touch, detecting a
stylus gesture performed via user manipulation of a stylus,
the stylus gesture being one of a plurality of stylus gestures
that each correspond to at least one of a plurality of actions
in a graphics application, at least one of the plurality of
stylus gestures configured to mimic a natural painting
operation, and the stylus gesture includes moving the
stylus in a fanning motion;
responsive to detecting the stylus gesture and the
touch, invoking a work mode that adjusts input parameters
of a particular natural painting operation that
corresponds to the stylus gesture, including invoking an
arc drawing tool responsive to detecting the stylus moving
in the fanning motion; and
performing the particular natural painting operation
in the graphics application, including drawing an arc in the
graphics application with a focal point on the touch.
Independent claim 16 is similar but for “invoking a line drawing tool
responsive to detecting the stylus moving steadily in the one direction,”
whereas claim 1 invokes an arc drawing tool in response to detecting a
fanning motion.
Independent claim 11 is similar but does not specify any particular
motion for the gesture and instead recites “responsive to the touch and the
stylus gesture, invokes a steady detail work mode that dampers motions of
the stylus by filtering motions of the stylus to provide steadier and smoother
stylus input.”
2
Appeal 2016-000450
Application 12/832,962
Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 16, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Perski (US 2008/0046425 Al;
Feb. 21, 2008) and Mouilleseaux et al. (US 2008/0252645 Al; Oct. 16,
2008). Final Act. 4.
Claims 11, 13, 14, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Perski, Mouilleseaux, and Vablais et al.
(US 2002/0181744 Al; Dec. 5, 2002). Final Act. 10.
Claims 3 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Perski, Mouilleseaux, and Kadowaki et al. (US
5,296,946; Mar. 22, 1994). Final Act. 15.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Perski, Mouilleseaux, and Forsline et al. (US
2003/0117408 Al; June 26, 2003). Final Act. 16.
Claims 9 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Perski, Mouilleseaux, and Kim et al. (US
2009/0265670 Al; Oct. 22, 2009). Final Act. 17.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Perski, Mouilleseaux, Vablais, and Kadowaki. Final Act.
19.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Perski, Mouilleseaux, Vablais, and Kim. Final Act. 20.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Perski,
Mouilleseaux, and Vablais teaches or suggests “responsive to the touch and
the stylus gesture, invokes a steady detail work mode that dampers motions
3
Appeal 2016-000450
Application 12/832,962
of the stylus by filtering motions of the stylus to provide steadier and
smoother stylus input,” as recited in claim 11?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Perski and
Mouilleseaux teaches or suggests “responsive to detecting the stylus gesture
and the touch, invoking a work mode that adjusts input parameters of a
particular natural painting operation that corresponds to the stylus gesture,
including invoking a line drawing tool responsive to detecting the stylus
moving steadily in the one direction,” as recited in claim 16?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Perski and
Mouilleseaux teaches or suggests “responsive to detecting the stylus gesture
and the touch, invoking a work mode that adjusts input parameters of a
particular natural painting operation that corresponds to the stylus gesture,
including invoking an arc drawing tool responsive to detecting the stylus
moving in the fanning motion,” as recited in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites “responsive to the touch and the stylus gesture,
invokes a steady detail work mode that dampers motions of the stylus by
filtering motions of the stylus to provide steadier and smoother stylus input.”
Appellant contends “Mouilleseaux simply fails to mention invocation
of a steady detail work mode responsive to a touch on the surface of a tablet
device and a stylus gesture.” App. Br. 22. Specifically, Appellant argues
Mouilleseaux teaches drawing a paint stroke, then later selecting that paint
stroke to edit what was input. Id. at 22—23.
Although we agree with Appellant that each reference individually
does not teach the entirety of the disputed limitation, Appellant has not
4
Appeal 2016-000450
Application 12/832,962
sufficiently addressed the Examiner’s proposed combination. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner finds Perski teaches
“to invoke a work mode that corresponds to the stylus gesture”;
Mouilleseaux teaches a work mode that adjusts jitter of a paint stroke; and
Vablais teaches “the stylus motion is filtered to provide steadier and
smoother stylus input.” Ans. 3 (citing Perski 194), 9—10 (citing
Mouilleseaux || 17, 24; Vablais 136). Appellant has not sufficiently
persuaded us the Examiner’s combination does not teach responsive to the
touch and the stylus gesture, invoking a work mode (Perski) that dampers
motions of the stylus (Mouilleseaux) by filtering motions of the stylus to
provide steadier and smoother stylus input (Vablais). Nor has Appellant
offered sufficient argument to persuade us the Examiner’s interpretation of a
“steady detail work mode” is in error. Ans. 9—10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, and
claims 12—15 and 23, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar
reasons. See App. Br. 24; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites “responsive to detecting the stylus gesture and the
touch, invoking a work mode that adjusts input parameters of a particular
natural painting operation that corresponds to the stylus gesture, including
invoking a line drawing tool responsive to detecting the stylus moving
steadily in the one direction.”
We are not persuaded by Appellant arguing limitations related to “arc
drawing” not found in claim 16. See App. Br. 17. Claim 1 relates to “arc
drawing,” but claim 16 instead relates to “line drawing.” See In re Self, 671
5
Appeal 2016-000450
Application 12/832,962
F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“appellant’s arguments fail from the outset
because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims”).
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that “Perski is
not seen to add anything of significance regarding the feature” of the
disputed limitation and that Mouilleseaux “lacks any description that is even
suggestive of ‘invoking a line drawing tool responsive to detecting the stylus
moving steadily in the one direction.’” App. Br. 18. Again, the Examiner
relies on a combination in which Perski teaches “to invoke a work mode that
corresponds to the stylus gesture” and Mouilleseaux teaches a “line drawing
tool to draw a straight line and the stylus moving [in] one direction.” Ans. 3
(citing Perski 1 94), 8 (citing Mouilleseaux 121). “Although the exemplary
paint stroke 201 is sinusoid-shaped, it can also be any other shape ....
Other example paint strokes . . . may be exactly straight.” Mouilleseaux
121. Mouilleseaux further teaches “[t]he movement of the brush icon 202 is
caused by a user inputting commands into an input device, such as ... a
touch screen device . . ., where a processor maps these input commands [as]
a movement of a cursor, control or indicator on the display.” Id. 118; see
also 119. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term in
light of the Specification (see, e.g., Spec. H 45, 89), and Appellant’s failure
to offer any definitions or claim constructions based on the Specification,
Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner’s proposed combination fails
to satisfy the disputed limitation. Although not necessary for our decision,
we also note Perski teaches the detected gesture can be a straight line (e.g.,
up or down, or left or right). See Perski Figs. 6A—6B, 198.
6
Appeal 2016-000450
Application 12/832,962
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16, and
claims 17—20, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons.
See App. Br. 20; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “responsive to detecting the stylus gesture and the
touch, invoking a work mode that adjusts input parameters of a particular
natural painting operation that corresponds to the stylus gesture, including
invoking an arc drawing tool responsive to detecting the stylus moving in
the fanning motion.”
The Examiner combines Perski and Mouilleseaux for this limitation.
Final Act. 5—7. Appellant argues the Examiner’s stated motivation to
combine (“to include the feature in order to provide a paint stroke system
which can adjust any characteristic that defines the overall look or effect of
the paint stroke”) both “lacks in particularity” and “is so sweepingly broad
that it could be used to argue for obviousness of any invention.” App. Br.
15; Final Act. 7. We agree with Appellant. Obviousness cannot be
established “by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The
Examiner should set forth with particularity the motivation to combine, such
as identifying where the prior art discusses the benefits of the relevant
teaching or specifically pointing out what in their background knowledge
would have caused a person of ordinary skill in the art to see an advantage in
the specific teaching being combined. See generally MPEP § 2143.
7
Appeal 2016-000450
Application 12/832,962
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1, and its dependent claims 3—9 and 21.
However, in the event of further prosecution of claim 1, the Examiner
is encouraged to consider construing the claim term “fanning motion,”
including considering whether a “fanning motion” is indefinite under 35
U.S.C. § 112 in light of the Specification. Appellant points to paragraphs 89
and 92 of the Specification for written description of this term. App. Br. 8.
Those paragraphs describe “a fanning motion (as if to draw an arc)” and
point to Figure 17B as an example. Spec. Tflf 89, 92, Fig. 17B. However,
elsewhere the Specification defines a “fanning motion” as “waving the
stylus tip back and forth above the tablet,” pointing to Figure 6C as an
example. Spec. Tflf 62—63, 5—6, Fig. 6C. Thus, Appellant’s Specification
uses the term to describe two different motions. As such, it is unclear
whether the claimed “fanning motion” refers to both or only one of these
motions, including whether these two motions are unrelated or instead
represent the same motion (e.g., does “drawing an arc” require “waving the
stylus tip back and forth above the tablet”?).
Additionally, the Examiner is encouraged to further consider the
teachings of Perski and Mouilleseaux, which each teach drawing curves (i.e.,
arcs). In particular, Perski teaches “a ‘rotate clockwise’ gesture
schematically illustrated in FIG. 7A includes stylus 212 and finger 214
substantially simultaneous motioning in a clockwise direction as indicated
by arrow 333 and 336, e.g. drawing a curve in a clockwise direction.”
Perski 199 (emphasis added), Figs. 7A—7B. Perski further teaches adjusting
the input parameters of this curve drawing gesture: “the amount of rotation
performed is response to recognition of the gesture is related to the spacing
8
Appeal 2016-000450
Application 12/832,962
between the points of origin of the stylus and finger” and “the amount of
rotation performed is responsive to the perimeter length of the tracking
curve.” Id. Mouilleseaux also teaches “[ojther example paint strokes . . .
may be exactly . . . curved.” Mouilleseaux 121. Thus, in the event of
further prosecution, we would encourage the Examiner to consider these
additional teachings in addressing whether the combination of Perski and
Mouilleseaux renders obvious claim 1.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 11—20 and 23.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—9, and 21.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9