Ex Parte Ikeda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 2017

12709740 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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. 1946-0177 7332 EXAMINER KHAN, IBRAHIM A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2692 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/709,740 02/22/2010 142241 7590 03/27/2017 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 1765 Greensboro Station Place Suite 320 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Tetsuo Ikeda 03/27/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TETSUO IKED A, RYU AO YAM A, TAKEHIKO TSURMUI, SCHOICHIRO MORIYA, and FUMINORI HOMMA Appeal 2015-005955 Application 12/709,740 Technology Center 2600 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-005955 Application 12/709,740 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1—17, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim 1. An apparatus, comprising: an outer frame portion positioned outside of the perimeter of a display portion, wherein an object is displayed on the display portion; a position detecting portion configured to detect a position of an operating body coming into at least one of touch contact and within a predetermined proximity contact to at least one of the display portion and the outer frame portion; and a display controlling portion configured to display on the display portion auxiliary information about an object displayed on the display portion, wherein the auxiliary information is displayed based a shift gesture by the operating body detected by the position detecting portion, wherein the shift gesture includes a combination of continuous contact by the operating body on both the outer frame portion and the display portion. Prior Art Hirayama US 5,406,307 Apr. 11, 1995 Gillespie US 5,880,411 Mar. 9, 1999 Branson US 2005/0114778 A1 May 26, 2005 Kerr US 2006/0197750 A1 Sept. 7, 2006 King US 2006/0238517 A1 Oct. 26, 2006 Anthony US 2007/0061745 A1 Mar. 15,2007 Ording US 2008/0034306 A1 Feb. 7, 2008 Kwon US 2008/016150 A1 July 10, 2008 Kao US 2008/0284754 A1 Nov. 20, 2008 Kim US 2009/0313545 A1 Dec. 17, 2009 2 Appeal 2015-005955 Application 12/709,740 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1—2, 9, 11, 13 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kerr, Branson, Gillespie, and Kao. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kerr, Branson, Gillespie, Kao, and Hirayama. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kerr, Branson, Gillespie, Kao, Hirayama, and Kim. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kerr, Branson, Gillespie, Kao, Hirayama, Kim, and King. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kerr, Branson, Gillespie, Kao, Hirayama, Kim, and Ording. Claim 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kerr, Branson, Gillespie, Kao, Hirayama, Kim, and Anthony. Claims 8, 10, 12, 14—15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as unpatentable over Kerr, Gillespie, and Kwon. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Claim 1 recites “a shift gesture performed on an object to display auxiliary information about that object, wherein the shift gesture includes a combination of continuous contact by the operating body on both the outer frame portion and the display portion.” Appellants quote several paragraphs from Kerr, then contend the quoted paragraphs of Kerr do not teach a shift 3 Appeal 2015-005955 Application 12/709,740 gesture that includes a combination of continuous contact by the operating body on both the outer frame portion and the display portion. App. Br. 17— 20; Reply Br. 6—12. The Examiner finds Paragraph 81 of Kerr teaches that the hand held device recognizes multi-point gestures applied to both the touch screen, or “display portion,” and the touch sensitive housing, or “outer frame portion,” of the device, and controls aspects of the device based on the recognized gestures. Ans. 4—5. The Examiner further finds that the scope of the claimed “shift gesture” does not require a swipe gesture starting on the outer frame of the device and ending in the display area. Ans. 5. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding that the scope of the claimed shift gesture encompasses the multi-point gesture applied to both the touch screen and touch sensitive housing of the device taught by Kerr. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 2—17 based on the premise that Kerr does not teach the shift gesture as claimed. App. Br. 21—27; Reply Br. 13—19. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given in our analysis of claim 1. We sustain the rejections of claims 2—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejections of claims 1—17 are affirmed. 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). 4 Appeal 2015-005955 Application 12/709,740 AFFIRMED 5