Ex Parte Harris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2016

13438808 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/438,808 04/03/2012
69753 7590 11/09/2016
APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Elliott Harris
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
106842124800
(Pl0875US1)
CONFIRMATION NO.
3186
EXAMINER
LAU, JOHNY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2016 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):
EOfficeLA@mofo.com
PatentDocket@mofo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELLIOTT HARRIS and ROBERT MICHAEL CHIN
Appeal2015-007980
Application 13/438,808
Technology Center 2600
Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN D. HAMANN Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 17, 19, and 21
through 28, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed inventions are directed to a method for use
with a touch screen device which makes use of data from sensors other than
the touch screen. The data is used to adjust an input processing algorithm.
See Abstract.
Appeal2015-007980
Application 13/438,808
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method of processing user input, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, via a touch screen of a computing device, input
from a user;
fetching data associated with the input from an
accelerometer and a first sensor, wherein the first sensor is
selected from the group consisting of a gyroscope, a
microphone, a Hall Effect sensor, a compass, an ambient light
sensor, a proximity sensor, a camera, and a positioning system;
adjusting an input processing algorithm based on the
input and the data to yield an adjusted input processing
algorithm; and
processing the input according to the adjusted input
processing algorithm.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1through8, 10 through 17, 19, and 21
through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geaghan
(US 2006/0279548 Al; pub. Dec. 14, 2006) and Braun (US 8,194,036 Bl;
iss. June 5, 2012). Office Act. 7-21. 1
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejections and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated January 21,
2015, Reply Brief dated August 31, 2015, Final Rejection dated May 22,
2014, and the Examiner's Answer mailed on July 1, 2015.
2
Appeal2015-007980
Application 13/438,808
arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 17, 19, and 21
through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8,
16 and 23 is in error as Geaghan and Braun do not teach adjusting an input
processing algorithm. App. Br. 6-9. Appellants argue that Geaghan teaches
using algorithms to detect different conditions, but does not describe any
adjustments to the algorithms themselves based upon touch screen input data
and data from other sensors. App. Br 6. Further, Appellants argue that
Braun teaches a trackpad input conversion factor which can be adjusted
based upon movement of the trackpad itself and not based upon the touch
input as claimed. App. Br. 8-9.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants'
arguments on pages 4 through 6 of the Answer. We have reviewed the
Examiner's Answer and the evidence cited and we concur with the
Examiner. The Examiner finds that Geaghan's teaching of an algorithm to
process inputs which makes use of a coarse input algorithm (pre-touch) that
is adjusted with fine input algorithm, which are iteratively performed, meets
the claimed adjusting an input algorithm. Answer 4--5. We concur with the
Examiner. We note that representative claim 1 does not recite what
constitutes an input algorithm and what constitutes an adjusted algorithm,
and neither Appellants' Specification nor arguments provide a definition of
an adjusted algorithm. We consider the Examiner's application of the art
which interprets the algorithms collectively used for processing the input, to
be the claimed adjusted algorithm (i.e. algorithm applied to process the input
is adjusted by the performance of the individual coarse and fine input
3
Appeal2015-007980
Application 13/438,808
algorithms) to be reasonable. Further, we note that Appellants'
Specification, in paragraph 9, provides an example of one embodiment in
which an algorithm that can filter out invalid inputs based upon touch input
and other data, is consistent with the Examiner's application of Geaghan.
We also note that Geaghan teaches an embodiment similar to that discussed
in paragraph 9 of Appellants' Specification, in which the touch input data
and an error signal (data from an accelerometer which measures the
movement of the touch panel associated with the sensed touch) are used
together to determine the touch location. Thus, Appellants' arguments have
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative claim
1 and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10 through
17, 19, and 21through28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10 through
17, 19, and 21through28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
4