Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2017

13935876 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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.
13/935,876 07/05/2013 Yin-Hui Lee 251632-1160 3158
109673 7590 08/11/2017
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
EXAMINER
AZONGHA, SARDIS F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2017 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):
uspatents @ mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina. silverio @ mqrlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YIN-HUI LEE and YEN-MIN CHANG
Appeal 2017-004663
Application 13/93 5,8761
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1—21, 23—42, and 44, which are all of the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 22 and 43 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Pixart Imaging Inc.
Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed June 27, 2016
(“Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed September 21, 2016 (“Ans.”); and Non-
Final Office Action mailed January 29, 2016 (“Non-Final Act.”).
Appeal 2017-004663
Application 13/935,876
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 23 and 44 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A virtual navigation apparatus, comprising:
a work surface;
a touch detection module, being electrically connected to
the work surface and configured to detect a plurality of first
detection data within a first time interval; and
a processor, being electrically connected to the touch
detection module and configured to determine that at least three
touch objects touch the work surface within the first time interval
according to the plurality of first detection data, wherein the at
least three touch objects comprise a first touch object, a second
touch object, and a third touch object,
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a
movement datum for each touch object according to the
following operations:
determining that the first touch object moves from a first
position on the work surface to a second position on the work
surface, the second touch object moves from a third position on
the work surface to a fourth position on the work surface, and the
third touch object moves from a fifth position on the work
surface to a sixth position on the work surface within the first
time interval according to the plurality of first detection data,
wherein the processor is further configured to determine
that each of the first touch object, the second touch object, and
the third touch object is a human finger according to a first spatial
relation between the first position, the third position, and the fifth
position and a second spatial relation between the second
position, the fourth position, and the sixth position,
wherein the processor is further configured to decide a
position signal according to the plurality of movement data in
response to the determination that each of the first touch object,
2
Appeal 2017-004663
Application 13/935,876
the second touch object, and the third touch object is a human
finger so that a host moves a cursor on a screen according to the
position signal.
Lyon
References
US 7,728,823 B2 June 1, 2010
Deluca US 2012/0188189 A1 July 26, 2012
Fyke US 2012/0206375 A1 Aug. 16, 2012
Seo US 2012/0306782 A1 Dec. 6, 2012
Davidson US 8,407,606 B1 Mar. 26, 2013
Yasutake US 2013/0127719 A1 May 23, 2013
Kukulski US 2013/0335333 A1 Dec. 19, 2013
Oh US 2014/0168097 A1 June 19, 2014
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1—9, 23—31, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Davidson, Fyke, and Deluca. Non-Final Act. 2—22.
Claims 10 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davidson, Fyke, Deluca, and Oh. Non-Final Act. 22—23,
37-38.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davidson, Fyke, Deluca, and Yasutake. Non-Final Act.
23.
Claims 12, 13, 17, 18, 33, 34, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davidson, Fyke, Deluca, and
Seo. Non-Final Act. 23—30, 38-45.
Claims 14—16 and 35—37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Davidson, Fyke, Deluca, and Kukulski. Non-Final
Act. 30-34, 45—48.
3
Appeal 2017-004663
Application 13/935,876
Claims 19-21 and 40-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Davidson, Fyke, Deluca, and Lyon. Non-Final Act.
34—37, 48-52.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions and adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims
argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
“determin[ing] that each . . . touch object is a human finger ”
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Davidson teaches
determin[ing] that each of the first touch object, the second touch
object, and the third touch object is a human finger according to
a first spatial relation between the first position, the third
position, and the fifth position and a second spatial relation
between the second position, the fourth position, and the sixth
position,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 23 and 44. Br. 10—16.
Specifically, Appellants argue ‘“[wjhaf the input mechanisms are is not the
concern of Davidson” and Davidson’s “input mechanisms may be something
other than fingers.” Id. at 12. Appellants further argue that the “possibility
that [Davidson’s] input mechanisms may be fingers could not be broadly
interpreted to” teach “determining that each of the first touch object, the
second touch object, and the third touch object is a human finger.” Id. at 15.
4
Appeal 2017-004663
Application 13/935,876
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds (Non-
Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 2—3), and we agree, Davidson teaches that “multi-touch
display device 400 is configured to detect that the index finger 404 of the
first hand 406 and the index finger 408 and thumb 410 of the second hand
412 have engaged object 402” (Davidson 9:7—10). The Examiner further
finds (Non-Final Act. 6; Ans. 5—6), and we agree, Deluca teaches an
apparatus that “assigns a digit identity to two or more digits based on ... .
the spatial position of one digit 104 in relation to another 106 on the sensor
101 surface” (Deluca 145). Additionally, Deluca teaches “recognizing] the
assigned digit identity for a digit by a relative position of a digit contact
point in relation to other digit contact points, a spatial relationship between
digits, and/or a distance between digits.” Deluca 1 57. The Examiner
“modif[ies] the invention[] of Davidson ... to include a digit identity
apparatus that is capable of detecting human fingers according to the spatial
relationship between digits, as taught by Deluca.” Non-Final Act. 6.
Appellants’ argument that Davidson’s “input mechanisms may be
something other than fingers” (Br. 12, 15) does not address the Examiner’s
combination of Davidson and Deluca. In particular, the Examiner
incorporates Deluca’s recognition of digit identities, i.e., specific human
fingers, based on spatial relationships into Davidson’s multi-touch display.
Non-Final Act. 6. That incorporation teaches objects touching Davidson’s
touch screen are specific human fingers. Id.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Davidson and Deluca teaches
determin[ing] that each of the first touch object, the second touch
object, and the third touch object is a human finger according to
a first spatial relation between the first position, the third
5
Appeal 2017-004663
Application 13/935,876
position, and the fifth position and a second spatial relation
between the second position, the fourth position, and the sixth
position,
within the meaning of claims 1, 23, and 44.
“decide a position signal... in response to the determination that each . . .
object is a human finger ”
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Fyke and Deluca teaches “decid[ing] a position signal according to the
plurality of movement data in response to the determination that each of the
first touch object, the second touch object, and the third touch object is a
human finger,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 23
and 44. Br. 16—17. Specifically, Appellants argue “the technique disclosed
by Deluca does not initiate a function in response to the determination that
each of the touch objects is a human finger.” Id. at 17.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Ans. 5—6; Non-Final
Act. 6), and we agree, Deluca teaches “detect[ing] a digit interaction of one
or more digits that have been assigned digit identities” and teaches that
“[a]ny . . . combination of contact or movements from one or more digits
102 may be used as digit interactions” (Deluca 1 52). Thus, Deluca teaches
detecting each finger interacting with a touch screen. The Examiner further
finds (Ans. 6; Non-Final Act. 6), and we agree, Deluca teaches
“recognizing] the assigned digit identities for the digits involved in the digit
interaction” and “initiating] one or more functions in response to
recognizing the assigned digit identities” (Deluca 143). That is, each finger
is identified, i.e., “determined,” and functions are provided based on the
identified fingers, as encompassed within the claim. Indeed, Appellants
6
Appeal 2017-004663
Application 13/935,876
recognize that, in Deluca, “the initiation module 212 initiates a function (a
digit event function) in response to the determination module 210
recognizing the assigned digit identity” (Br. 16—17 (citing Deluca 57,
60)). As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Deluca
teaches “decid[ing] a position signal according to the plurality of movement
data in response to the determination that each of the first touch object, the
second touch object, and the third touch object is a human finger,” within the
meaning of claims 1, 23, and 44.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
references teach or suggest the limitations of claims 1, 23, and 44.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 23, and 44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). We likewise sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 2—21 and 24-42, for which Appellants offer no additional persuasive
arguments for patentability. See Br. 18.
7
Appeal 2017-004663
Application 13/935,876
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—21, 23—42,
and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).3
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).
AFFIRMED
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether the disputed limitation, determin[ingj that each . . . touch object is a
human finger, complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. In particular,
Appellants appear to contend the inventive feature is the determination that a
touch object is a human finger as opposed to “something other than a human
being (e.g., a pet)” (Br. 9, 17). Appellants’ Specification, however, does not
detail exactly how the human finger is determined or distinguished from
something that is not a human finger (Spec. 11:13—15, 31:5—9). See
Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(The “specification . . . must supply the novel aspects of an invention in
order to constitute adequate enablement.”).
8