Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2018

14094916 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018)

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.
14/094,916 12/03/2013 Jerry Huang 340155.01 8714
69316 7590 02/28/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
YEUNG, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JERRY HUANG and ZHEN LIU
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7 and 9—
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm-in-part.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “improving user interaction with a device
or system that has a display.” Specification, paragraph 7.
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
Illustrative Claim
1. A computational process for adapting a user interface in response
to an input source change, the user interface displayed on a touch-responsive
screen of a device which also has a processor and memory, the process
comprising the steps of:
providing in the device at least two input source identifiers which identify
inputs to the touch-responsive screen and at least two user interface
components of a user interface which is displayed on the touch-
responsive screen, the user interface having at least two user interface
components, each of said user interface components being a button, a
menu, a menu item, an icon, a slider, or a window, and each of said
user interface components being generated by the device as opposed
to being user input;
linking each of the at least two input source identifiers with a respective user
interface component in the memory;
the device detecting an input source change, from a first input source
identifier linked with a first user interface component to a second
input source identifier linked with a second user interface component;
and
in response to the detecting step, adapting the user interface by doing at least
one of the following: removing from user view a first user interface
component which is linked with the first input source identifier and is
not linked with the second input source identifier, or making visible a
second user interface component which is not linked with the first
input source identifier and is linked with the second input source
identifier;
wherein the process further comprises at least one of the following:
(a) determining whether or not an input source produces touch areas
of at least three different sizes which differ from one another in that
each of the sizes except the smallest size is at least 30% larger than
another of the sizes;
(b) detecting an input source change by checking which device driver
is configured in the device to supply input; or
(c) calibrating touch area size categories at least in part by obtaining
sample touch areas as calibration inputs.
2
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 6, 14, 15, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Perski (US Patent Application Publication
2008/0046425 Al; published February 21, 2008) and Kim (US Patent
Application Publication 2010/0017710 Al; published January 21, 2010).
Final Action 3—12.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Perski, Kim, Abdo (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0248941
Al; published October 13, 2011) and Robb (US Patent 6,320,570 B2; issued
November 20, 2001). Final Action 13—14.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Perski, Kim and Cantrell (US Patent Application Publication
2013/0120278 Al; published May 16, 2013). Final Action 15—16.
Claims 7, 10, 11 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Perski, Kinoshita (US Patent Application Publication
2010/0095205 Al; published April 15, 2010) and Kim. Final Action 16—21.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Perski, Kinoshita, Kim, Abdo and Robb. Final Action 21—24.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Perski, Kinoshita, Kim and Peng (US Patent Application Publication
2013/0162603 Al; published June 27, 2013). Final Action 24.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Perski, Kim and Peng. Final Action 24-25.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Perski, Kinoshita, Kim and Cantrell. Final Action 25—26.
Claims 3, 17 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Perski, Kim and Urano (US Patent Application
3
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
Publication 2011/0279408 A1; published November 17, 2011). Final Action
27-28.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 30, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
December 7, 2016), the Final Action (mailed February 26, 2016) and the
Answer (mailed October 26, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellants group the claim for purposes of appeal and we address the
claims accordingly. See Appeal Brief 7.
Group I claims 1—3, 6 and 21
Appellants contend the rejection of claim 1 has the following
underlined short comings (Appeal Brief 12—13):
• fThe rejection] “misinterprets Perski’s user inputs as user interface
components, contrary to Applicant’s unanswered argument and contrary to
the plain language of the claim.”
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive of Examiner’s error
because “Appellant acknowledges that user interface components are
known. Something in Perski displays the user input, and that something
would likely involve some kind of user interface component, e.g., a
window.” Reply Brief 5.
• fThe rejection] “fails to clearly map the claimed ‘input source identifiers’
to a specific teaching in a reference.”
4
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
Perski’s Figures 8a and 8b are reproduced below:
10
FIG. 8A illustrates a copy command combination gesture including a stylus
212 and a finger 214 and FIG. 8B illustrates a cut command gesture with a
single user interaction, e.g. a stylus 212. In both FIG. 8A and 8B the stylus
forms the same gesture, e.g. a ‘C’ shaped tracking curve 433. The command
for copy and cut is distinguished based on input from the finger 214.
Recognition of the presence of the finger touch or hovering shown in FIG. 8A
indicates a copy command while the absence of the finger touch such as is the
case in FIG. 8B indicates that the gesture is a cut gesture. In some exemplary
embodiments, the extent of the cut or copy gestures, e.g. how much is cut or
copied, may depend on the extent of the gestures.
Perski Paragraph 100.
5
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
Perski’s Figure 9 is reproduced below:
10
[A] copy combined gesture may include two fingers 2144 tracking out a ‘C’
shape 2145 and subsequently remaining on the screen while stylus 212
underlines a portion of the contents of screen 10 to be copied, e.g. text 543
displayed on the screen. In another exemplary embodiment, a combined
gesture for a bold command to bold letters includes performing a pre-defmed
gesture with a finger while and/or directly after writing letters with the stylus.
Perski, paragraph 101.
Appellants argue:
Perski Fig. 9 shows a flat panel display with text 543 displayed
on the screen 10, a stylus 212, and two fingers 2144 tracking out
a ‘C’ shape 2145. The stylus could be viewed as one input source
and the fingers could be viewed as another input source. But
neither Fig. 9 nor Perski Para. 101 teach input source identifiers
which are linked to user interface components (as opposed to user
input, such as text 543 or the C shape 2145) as claimed.
Appeal Brief 11.
The Examiner finds it is “code that identifies an input as a finger or a
stylus (see Abstract and Para. 47)” and therefore Perski “suggests such an
[input source] identifier by detecting and assigning functions to gestures
from a stylus and different functions to gestures from a finger.” Answer 7.
The Examiner finds Perski discloses detecting input source identifiers from
6
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
two different inputs (finger and/or stylus) and linking them “with a
respective user interface component in the memory” — a copy or cut text
command. Final Action 4. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
Examiner’s error because the input source identifiers are mapped to a
specific teaching in Perski.
• IThe rejection! “misinterprets Kim’s single input source - a user’s finger-
as being two input sources.”
Appellants further argue, “[t]hen the Final Office Action cites Kim
‘Figs. 17 and 18 where touch and pressure mode inputs generate two
different functions such as previewing a sub-menu.’ But Kim Figs. 17 and
18 do not show different input sources. They both show the same input
source: a user’s finger.” Appeal Brief 11.
The Examiner finds:
The Kim reference is not misinterpreting a single input source
since in Kim, rather cited to show it is a known technique to have
different types of input sources, [sic] Similarly in Perski,
different input sources are generated by two different inputs
(stylus and finger). It stands to reason since both references
discuss similar devices from the view of the user and the view
point of the device and each of the references receives different
input signals that the references would be combined by one of
ordinary skill.
Answer 8.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive because Kim
discloses that inputting user commands by pressure of a constant intensity or
touch are two distinct input sources. Kim, paragraphs 3, 8 and 18, for
example. Further, Appellants admit that Perski teaches two different input
sources, i.e., the stylus and the finger. Appeal brief 11. The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
7
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
and In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
• fThe rejection! “misinterprets Kim as teaching ‘checking which device
driver is configured in the device to supply input’ when Kim does not even
mention device drivers, much less teach this particular claimed use of device
drivers.”
Appellants argue”
Claim 1 also recites “wherein the process further
comprises at least one of the following: (a) determining whether
or not an input source produces touch areas of at least three
different sizes which differ from one another in that each of the
sizes except the smallest size is at least 30% larger than another
of the sizes; (b) detecting an input source change by checking
which device driver is configured in the device to supply input;
or (c) calibrating touch area size categories at least in part by
obtaining sample touch areas as calibration inputs”
and “[njothing is cited against portion (a) or portion (c).”
Appeal Brief 12.
Appellants contend in rejecting portion (b), the Examiner “asserts that
‘driver is broadly reasonably interpreted to include device software
communication instructions, see [Kim] Fig. 1, in conjunction with Para. 89-
92 where individual touch detector and pressure detectors are used to decode
and supply input for specific functions.”’ Appeal Brief 12 (citing Final
Action 5—6). Appellants argue, “[hjowever, this does not justify the
rejection” because “Kim does not even mention ‘driver’” and replacing
“device driver” with “‘device software communication instructions’ as the
rejection would do, Kim Fig. 1 contains nothing labeled as device software
communication instructions” and “even if we pretend that Kim Fig. 1
teaches a device driver for ‘individual touch detector and pressure detectors
8
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
[that] are used to decode and supply input for specific functions,’ touch and
pressure are not different input sources.” Appeal Brief 12.
Appellants state support for “(b) detecting an input source change by
checking which device driver is configured in the device to supply input” is
found in the Specification on page 48, lines 5—6 [“Some embodiments check
2522 which device driver 416 is configured in the device to supply input].”
Appeal Brief 3. The Specification further discloses on page 48, lines 3—5,
“[i]n some embodiments, detecting 2512 an input source change made 2510
by a user includes querying 2520 an operating system 130 to determine a
currently enabled input source 402.” We do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive because Kim discloses touch and pressure are different types of
sources inputs requiring different features to accommodate each one. See
Kim, paragraphs 30—34, for example. Further Appellants do not convince us
that anything recited in the claims, as interpreted according to a broadest
reasonable interpretation, patentably distinguishes the generic drivers of the
claimed invention from the cited prior art. “As our precedents make clear,
however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSRInt’lv. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 6 and 21 not separately argued. See Appeal
Brief 13-14,21.
Group II claims 4 and 9
Appellants argue the Examiner’s reliance upon Abdo to disclose claim
4’s limitation pertaining to identifying at least 3 touch areas with size
9
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
differentials is erroneous because Abdo’s Figure 19 discloses pressure
mapping and not touch areas. Appeal Brief 13. We find Appellants’
arguments persuasive. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that Kim’s
disclosure of “multiple pressure thresholds (see Para. 88)-” in combination
with Abdo’s disclosure of a pressure map in Figure 19 teaches the touch
areas’ size differentials, recited in dependent claim 4. Final Action 13—14.
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 4. We also
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 9 for the same
reasons. The inclusion of Robb fails to address the noted deficiency of
Abdo. See Final Action 23. We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings
that routine optimization would render the claimed range obvious because
(1) the combination of Perski, Kinoshita, and Abdo does not disclose 3 areas
of different sizes that differ from one another by at least 20% with the
exception of the smallest size and (2) in order to optimize the size ranges, as
the Examiner proposes, the elements need to be disclosed in the cited prior
art to be optimized. See Final Rejection 21—23.
Group III claims 7, 11—13 and 22
• IThe rejection! “chons ‘with at least one touch area size category in the
device’ out of the associating step and asserts that associating happens in
isolation.”
Appellants contend:
[T]he rejection does finally recognize that Perski fails to teach
the claimed associating step of “associating each of the at least
two user interface components with at least one touch area size
category in the device.” The rejection then cites Kinoshita Para.
103 as “using a minimum contact area size to determine if finger
or pen.” But at most this maps contact area size to input sources,
not to touch area size categories.
10
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
Appeal Brief 15.
Kinoshita’s Figure 2 is reproduced below:
FINGERTIP : CONTACT AREA !$ LARGE
PEN : CONTACT AREA IS SIALL
FIG. 2 is a diagram for explaining an input-means determining method in the
case in which a panel of a surface elastic type is used as a touch panel. It is
determined whether an input is a pen input (a main input) or an input by a
finger (a sub-input). Kinoshita, paragraph 103.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive of Examiner’s error
because “Appellant acknowledges that user interface components are
known. Something in Perski displays the user input, and that something
would likely involve some kind of user interface component, e.g., a
window.” Reply Brief 5. Kinoshita discloses in paragraph 103,
The input-means determining unit 8 discriminates, when a
contact area on the touch panel 5 is smaller than a predetermined
value, that the input is the main input, i.e., the input by a pen and
discriminates, when a contact area on the touch panel 5 is equal
to or larger than the predetermined value, that the input is the
sub-input, i.e., the input by a finger.”
The Examiner finds Kinoshita discloses two touch area size categories and
not merely two input sources. See Final Action 17. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings that Perski in combination with Kinoshita discloses the
claimed touch area size category.
11
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
• IThe rejection! “misinterprets Kinoshita’s touch area distinction, which
merely distinguishes between a pen and a finger, as also teaching an
association of touch area size categories with user interface components.”
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Kinoshita
teaches touch area size categories and given the broad definition of user
interface components, Kinoshita also discloses associating the touch area
size categories with user interface components either alone or in
combination with Perski. See Specification, paragraph 5; Reply Brief 5 and
Kinoshita, paragraph 103.
• IThe rejection] “misinterprets Kim’s touch and pressure as different touch
area size categories.”
Appellants argue, “The Final Office Action also cites Kim ‘Figs. 17
and 18 where touch and pressure mode inputs generate two different
functions such as previewing a sub-menu.’” Appeal Brief 16. Appellants
argue that Kim’s Figures 17 and 18 “show touches, not touch area size
categories” because the figures “show the same user finger as the input
source.” Appeal Brief 16. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive
because the Examiner relied upon Kim to disclose types of interface
components and not touch area size categories comparisons. See Final
Action 18—19. Subsequently, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 7 \ as well as, dependent claims 11—13 and 22 not
separately argued. Appeal Brief 18,21.
1 The Examiner should also consider whether claim 7 encompasses lion-
statutory transitory media such as signals sent over optical or electronic
communication links. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
12
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
Group IV claim 10
Appellants contend in rejecting claim 10, the Examiner “asserts that
‘driver is broadly reasonably interpreted to include device software
communication instructions, see [Kim] Fig. 1, in conjunction with Para. 89-
92 where individual touch detector and pressure detectors are used to
decode and supply input for specific functions.”’ Appeal Brief 17 (citing
Final Action 5—6). Appellants argue, “[hjowever, this does not justify the
rejection” because “Kim does not even mention ‘driver’” and replacing
“device driver” with “‘device software communication instructions’ as the
rejection would do, Kim Fig. 1 contains nothing labeled as device software
communication instructions.” Appeal Brief 17. Appellants further contend:
The Examiner appears to think that an “input source change” is
a change in the input. That is not correct. An “input source
change” is not a change in the input itself such as the pressure
level increases or decreases that are discussed in Kim Para. 89-
92, but is rather a change in the source of the input, e.g., changing
from an adult’s finger to a child’s finger or from a finger to a
stylus, for example. Thus, Kim Fig. 1 does not teach detecting an
“input source change” as one of skill would understand the
present claims. For at least these reasons, the rejection of claim
10 should be reversed.
Appeal Brief 17—18.
Appellants state support for “(b) detecting an input source change by
checking which device driver is configured in the device to supply input” is
found in the Specification on page 48, lines 5—6 [“Some embodiments check
2522 which device driver 416 is configured in the device to supply input].”
2007); see also MPEP § 2106(1) (9th ed., Rev. 11 Mar. 2014) and Ex parte
Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1859 (PTAB 2013) (precedential opinion).
13
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
Appeal Brief 3. The Specification further discloses on page 48, lines 3—5,
“[i]n some embodiments, detecting 2512 an input source change made 2510
by a user includes querying 2520 an operating system 130 to determine a
currently enabled input source 402.” We do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive because Kim discloses that touch and pressure are different types
of sources inputs requiring different features to accommodate each one. See
Kim, paragraphs 30—34, for example. Further, it is evident that there is
nothing in the Specification nor is there anything recited in the claims that
patentably distinguishes the generic drivers of the claimed invention from
the cited prior art. “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR
Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 10.
Group V claims 14—20
• IThe rejection! “misinterprets a finger and a stylus as components of a user
interface instead of recognizing that they are examples of input sources.”
Appellants contend:
Independent claim 14 recites in part “a touch-sensitive display
screen displaying a user interface.” At page 9, the 2/26/2016
Final Office Action cites Perski “Fig. 8a detecting a finger or
stylus from a user.” But a finger and a stylus are examples of
input sources; they are not components of a user interface.
Appeal Brief 18.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive of Examiner’s error
because “Appellant acknowledges that user interface components are
known. Something in Perski displays the user input, and that something
14
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
would likely involve some kind of user interface component, e.g., a
window.” Reply Brief 5.
• IThe rejection! “linkfsl two input sources with one another - which is not
in the claim — with the actually claimed linking of each input source
identifier with a respective user interface component.”
Appellants contend:
Claim 14 also recites “linking each of the at least two input
source identifiers with a respective user interface component.”
At page 9, the Final Office Action cites Perski “Figs. 8a-9
disclosing concept of identifying stylus input or finger contact
input to perform commands together in Para. 101.” The
Examiner confused linking two input sources with one another
something not in the claim - with the actually claimed linking of
each input source identifier with a respective user interface
component.
Appeal Brief 18.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive of Examiner’s error
because “Appellant acknowledges that user interface components are
known. Something in Perski displays the user input, and that something
would likely involve some kind of user interface component, e.g., a
window.” Reply Brief 5.
• IThe rejection! “misinterprets ‘input source change’ to mean a change in
the input itself rather than a change in the source of the input.”
Appellants contend:
Claim 14 also recites “detecting an input source change from a
first input source identifier linked with a first user interface
component to a second input source identifier linked with a
second user interface component at least in part by checking
which device driver is configured in the device to supply input.”
The rejection of this language tracks the rejection of claim 10,
and the analysis above applies here in claim 14 as well.
Appeal Brief 18.
15
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
Appellants state support for “(b) detecting an input source change by
checking which device driver is configured in the device to supply input” is
found in the Specification on page 48, lines 5—6 [“Some embodiments check
2522 which device driver 416 is configured in the device to supply input”].
Appeal Brief 3. The Specification further discloses on page 48, lines 3—5,
“In some embodiments, detecting 2512 an input source change made 2510
by a user includes querying 2520 an operating system 130 to determine a
currently enabled input source 402.” We do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive because Kim discloses that touch and pressure are different types
of sources inputs requiring different features to accommodate each one. See
Kim, paragraphs 30—34, for example. Further, it is evident that there is
nothing in the Specification nor is there anything recited in the claims that
patentably distinguishes the generic drivers of the claimed invention from
the cited prior art. “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR
Int’lv. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
• fThe rejection] “confuses changes in pressure level from a finger with
changes between a finger and another input source.”
Appellants contend:
Against the severed part of the claim element, the Examiner cites
Kim “Figs. 17 and 18 where pressure determines displaying a
submenu in a pressure mode, and no pressure in a touch mode is
another function in Para. 88-92.” But Kim Figs. 17 and 18
involve different pressure levels from the same input source: a
user’s finger. They do not teach adapting a user interface in
response to a change in input sources.
Appeal Brief 19.
16
Appeal 2017-002717
Application 14/094,916
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Kim
discloses that touch and pressure are different types of source inputs
requiring different features to accommodate each one. See Kim, paragraphs
30-34, for example. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 14, as well as, dependent claims 15—20 not
separately argued. Appeal Brief 20—21.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—3, 6, 7 and 10-22
are affirmed.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4 and 9 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17