Ex Parte Kritt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2018

14307866 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/307,866 06/18/2014
108794 7590 03/20/2018
IBM POU IPLA W (GLF)
c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC
4521 Copper Mountain Lane
Richardson, TX 75082
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
BARRY A. KRITT
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
A US920l40099US1 1074
EXAMINER
YEUNG, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2018 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):
dpandya@garglaw.com
uspto@garglaw.com
garglaw@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARRY A. KRITT and SARBAJIT K. RAKSHIT
Appeal2017-009533
Application 14/307,866
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 10-21 and 23-26, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-009533
Application 14/307,866
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
computer products for using touch-based gestures. See generally Spec. 1.
Claim 10 is exemplary:
10. A computer usable program product comprising a
computer readable storage device including computer usable
code for disambiguation of a touch-based gesture, the computer
usable code comprising:
computer usable code for detecting, at an application
executing using a processor in a touch-sensitive device, that the
touch-based gesture does not correspond to a perimeter defining
an action, wherein the touch-based gesture is made on a
graphical user interface presented on the touch-sensitive device;
computer usable code for determining a set of possible
actions intended by the touch-based gesture, the set of possible
actions including a first possible action and a second possible
action, the first possible action corresponding to a first
perimeter and the second possible action corresponding to a
second perimeter;
computer usable code for selecting, using a
disambiguation rule, the first possible action from the set of
possible actions, wherein the first possible action the first
possible action is more likely than the second possible action
according to the disambiguation rule;
computer usable code for causing the first possible action
to occur at the touch-sensitive device;
computer usable code for changing, responsive to the
first possible action being more likely than the second possible
action according to the disambiguation rule, a property of the
first perimeter relative to a property of the second perimeter in
the graphical user interface, wherein the property of the first
perimeter is a snap-to attraction factor of the first perimeter and
the property of the second perimeter is a snap-to attraction
factor of the second perimeter, and wherein the computer usable
2
Appeal2017-009533
Application 14/307,866
code for changing increases the snap-to attraction factor of the
first perimeter to be greater than the snap-to attraction factor of
the second perimeter such that the first perimeter has a higher
degree of attractiveness to snap the touch-based gesture to the
first perimeter as compared to a degree of attractiveness for
snapping the touch-based gesture to the second perimeter.
Dehlin
Scott
Abernethy, Jr.
("Abernethy")
Brade a
Bachfischer
Engdahl
References and Rejections
US 2006/0010400 A 1
US 2008/0104537 Al
US 2009/0125833 Al
US 2009/0138823 Al
US 2009/0327977 Al
US 2013/0285931 Al
Jan. 12,2006
May 1, 2008
May 14, 2009
May 28, 2009
Dec. 31, 2009
Oct. 31, 2013
Claims 10-12, 14-17, 20, 21, 25, and 26 stand rejected under
35U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Engdahl and Bachfischer.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Engdahl, Bachfischer, and Dehlin.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Engdahl and Bachfischer.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Engdahl, Bachfischer, and Scott.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Engdahl, Bachfischer, Bradea, and Abernethy.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
3
Appeal2017-009533
Application 14/307,866
appeal is taken (Final Act. 5-19) and (ii) the Answer (Ans. 5-14) to the
extent they are consistent with our analysis below. 1
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 10.
Appellants contend Engdahl does not teach any "attraction factor" or
"snap-to attraction factor," as recited in claim 10. See App. Br. 9-18; Reply
Br. 2-7. In particular, Appellants cite excerpts from the Specification and
argue the claim limitation
changing increases the snap-to attraction factor of the first
perimeter to be greater than the snap-to attraction factor of the
second perimeter such that the first perimeter has a higher
degree of attractiveness to snap the touch-based gesture to the
first perimeter as compared to a degree of attractiveness for
snapping the touch-based gesture to the second perimeter
"when interpreted in view of the [S]pecification clearly distinguishes the
snap-to-attraction factor from the merely applying weight." App. Br. 13; see
also App. Br. 9-18; Reply Br. 2-7.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. It is well established that
during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification and should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, but
without importing limitations from the specification. See In re Am. A cad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); SuperGuide Corp. v.
DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The terms "attraction factor" (or "snap-to attraction factor") and
"degree of attractiveness" are subjective terms because "attraction" and
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2).
4
Appeal2017-009533
Application 14/307,866
"attractiveness" are subjective, and Appellants have not shown the
Specification specifically defines those terms. Appellants cite paragraphs 3 7
and 39 of the Specification, which state:
[0037] An embodiment can highlight the various perimeters in
other ways. Other contemplated manners of highlighting a
perimeter according to the perimeter's weight include but are
not limited to changing colors according to a weighted color
palette, coloring or shading according to a weight gradient,
sizing according to a weight gradient, selecting fonts according
to weights, blink-rate adjustment, snap-to attraction factor
adjustment, and so on.
[0039] ... As another example, a snap-to attraction factor
adjustment according to a weight gradient may use the highest
degree of attractiveness for snapping a gesture to the most
likely perimeter and the lowest degree of attractiveness for
snapping a gesture to the least likely perimeter, and other
degrees of attractiveness for perimeters with intermediate
likelihoods.
Spec. iii! 37, 39 (emphases added).
The above paragraphs do not specifically define the term "attraction
factor" (or "snap-to attraction factor") or "degree of attractiveness." Instead,
they merely describe the terms in non-limiting examples. As a result,
Appellants have not shown the cited Specification requires their assertion
that
the [S]pecification is clear in at least three teachings - (i) the
weight itself is not a manner of highlighting a perimeter but that
the weight can be used in many different ways to create
highlights of a perimeter; (ii) the snap-to-attraction is a manner
of highlighting that can be based on the weight gradient but is
itself not the weight gradient; and (iii) snap-to-attraction factor
is a distinct manner of highlighting than any other manner of
highlighting a perimeter based on the weight gradient.
5
Appeal2017-009533
Application 14/307,866
App. Br. 12-13; see also App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4-5. To the contrary, in a
non-limiting example, the above Specification describes snap-to attraction
factor adjustment as a manner of highlighting a perimeter according to the
perimeter's weight. See Spec. ii 37.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and
consistent with the Specification, the Examiner cites Engdahl for
teaching the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 6. Among other
things, the cited Engdahl portions teach:
One example of weighting involves considering the touch
location, such that when the touch location is associated with a
selection option, the overlap value associated with that selection
option is increased. In the example of FIG. 9, the touch
location 950 is within the area of the upper selection option
910, and the overlap value for that selection option may be
increased, giving this selection option 910 a higher overlap
value than the lower selection option 920. For example,
accurate results may be achieved by multiplying the overlap
value of the selection option that contains the touch location
450 by a factor of 2.
Engdahl ii 52.
Therefore, and contrary to Appellants' assertion (App. Br. 13-14, 16-
18), Engdahl teaches increasing the overlap value associated with selection
option 910 relative to the overlap value associated with selection option 920.
See Engdahl ii 52. As a result, in comparison with selection option 920,
selection option 910 has a higher degree of overlap value, and thus a higher
degree of attractiveness to snap the touch-based gesture. See Engdahl ii 52.
Further, the Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-the
claimed "first perimeter" encompasses Engdahl's selection option 910, and
the claimed "second perimeter" encompasses Engdahl' s selection option
920. See Final Act. 6.
6
Appeal2017-009533
Application 14/307,866
As a result, the Examiner correctly finds
changing increases the snap-to attraction factor of the first
perimeter to be greater than the snap-to attraction factor of the
second perimeter such that the first perimeter has a higher
degree of attractiveness to snap the touch-based gesture to the
first perimeter as compared to a degree of attractiveness for
snapping the touch-based gesture to the second perimeter,
as recited in claim 10, is taught by or at least obvious in light of Engdahl's
teachings. See Ans. 10-11. 2 The Examiner's finding is also supported by
the Specification: consistent with the snap-to attraction factor adjustment
described in paragraph 37 of the Specification, Engdahl teaches adjusting the
overlap value associated with selection option 910 as a manner of
highlighting selection option 910 according to selection option 910' s weight.
As discussed above, "attraction factor" (or "snap-to attraction factor") and
"degree of attractiveness" are subjective terms that describe preferences
based on arbitrary factors, and Appellants fail to persuasively show the
Examiner's findings are incorrect.
Appellants' assertion that the limitation
changing increases the snap-to attraction factor of the first
perimeter to be greater than the snap-to attraction factor of the
second perimeter such that the first perimeter has a higher
degree of attractiveness to snap the touch-based gesture to the
first perimeter as compared to a degree of attractiveness for
snapping the touch-based gesture to the second perimeter,
"when interpreted in view of the [S]pecification clearly distinguishes the
snap-to attraction factor from the merely applying weighting" (App. Br. 13,
2 Appellants incorrectly argue the "Examiner equates the 'snap-to attraction
factor' recited in the claim 10 with Engdahl' s description of 'applying
weighting' to selection options having the same size and same area of
overlap." App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 3.
7
Appeal2017-009533
Application 14/307,866
16; see also App. Br. 14) is incorrect and not directed to the Examiner's
findings. As discussed above, the Examiner doesn't "merely apply[]
weighting," as Appellants assert (App. Br. 16).
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 10, and independent
claim 20 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 11-19, 21, and 23-26, as Appellants do not advance separate
substantive arguments regarding those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-21 and 23-26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8