Ex Parte Kritt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 201814307866 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation