Ex Parte Martisauskas

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 14, 2017

13232968 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 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. 13/232,968 09/14/2011 Steven J. MARTISAUSKAS 106842046000 1384 (P11063US1) 69753 7590 03/16/2017 APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 EXAMINER PATEL, PREMAL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2017 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): EOfficeL A @ mofo. com PatentDocket @ mofo. com pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN J. MARTISAUSKAS Appeal 2016-001422 Application 13/232,968 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-001422 Application 13/232,968 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Representative Claim 1. A keyboard comprising: a plurality of keys, one or more of the keys being selectively depressible such that depression of the one or more keys is physically prevented by an actuator of the keyboard in a gesture mode and the actuator moves in a key press mode to physically allow depression of the one or more keys; and a touch sensor co-located with one or more of the keys for detecting touch events on the one or more keys. Prior Art Iesaka US 2003/0201982 A1 Oct. 30, 2003 Grant US 2009/0128503 A1 May 21, 2009 Chen US 2009/0160785 A1 June 25, 2009 Ball US 2010/0259482 A1 Oct. 14,2010 Suggs US 2012/0256839 A1 Oct. 11,2012 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1—9, 12—15, 20, 21, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ball and Grant. Claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ball, Suggs, and Grant. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ball, Grant, and Chen. 2 Appeal 2016-001422 Application 13/232,968 Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ball, Grant, and Iesaka. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ball, Suggs, Grant, and Chen. ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “a plurality of keys, one or more of the keys being selectively depressible such that depression of the one or more keys is physically prevented by an actuator of the keyboard in a gesture mode and the actuator moves in a key press mode to physically allow depression of the one or more keys.” Appellant contends the combination of Ball and Grant does not teach this limitation. Br. 4. The Examiner finds Paragraph 28 of Grant teaches depression of the one or more keys is physically prevented by an actuator. Ans. 3. Paragraph 28 of Grant teaches Interface device 106 provides a pattern of locating features as relief information, which assists a user to pinpoint exactly where to press on a touch-sensitive surface. Interface device 106, in one embodiment, uses one or more actuator(s) to activate the pattern of locating features. When the actuator (s) is activated, the surface of interface device 106 forms relief information with a pattern of locating features. The surface of interface device 106, however, returns to its smooth surface when the actuator is deactivated. It should be noted that a function of the one embodiment of the present invention is to allow an interface device to form a pattern of locating features when it is desirable. It should be noted that the underlying concept of the exemplary embodiment of the present invention would not change if one or more blocks or layers were added to or removed from device 106. 3 Appeal 2016-001422 Application 13/232,968 Appellant contends Paragraph 28 of Grant does not teach physically preventing depression of the touch-sensitive surface. Br. 5. We agree with Appellant. The Examiner has not persuasively explained how the combination of Ball and Grant teaches “depression of the one or more keys is physically prevented by an actuator of the keyboard in a gesture mode” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner has also not shown that Suggs, Chen, or Iesaka teaches this limitation. The Examiner further finds that the scope of “depression of the one or more keys is physically prevented by an actuator of the keyboard in a gesture mode” as recited in claim 1 encompasses preventing depression of the key for very light pressure. Ans. 4. The Examiner has not persuasively explained that the broadest reasonable scope of “depression ... is physically prevented by an actuator,” when read in light of Appellant’s Specification, encompasses depression is prevented for light pressure. The examples from Appellant’s Specification cited by the Examiner (Ans. 4—5) do not describe preventing depression for light pressure. Rather, Paragraph 40 discloses an arm in contact with a shell, to prevent the shell from collapsing. Paragraph 49 discloses that the depression of a key is disallowed by a rigid actuator. We agree with Appellant that the language of the claim, when read in light of the Specification, requires that the reason the key does not depress is that an actuator physically stops the key from being depressed. Br. 5. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2—25 either recite or depend from a claim reciting a limitation similar to that recited in claim 1 for which the rejection fails. We do not sustain the rejections of claims 2—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 4 Appeal 2016-001422 Application 13/232,968 DECISION The rejections of claims 1—25 are reversed. REVERSED 5