Ex Parte Miura

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 2016

13057845 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/057,845 02/07/2011 129113 7590 06/30/2016 Motorola, a Lenovo Company 222 West Merchandise Mart Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Nariaki Miura 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. Q200742 5858 EXAMINER LANDIS, LISA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2016 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): docketing.lenovo@motorola.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NARIAKI MIURA Appeal2015-001047 Application 13/057,845 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL .l .... ,1 .... ,....,-TTr'1.r-"\ l\-1,....Al/'\.r'" T"""1 â€¢ -, Appeuant' appeals unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom an bxammer s Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3-13, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. Claim 2 has been cancelled. App. Br. 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies NEC CORPORATION as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. An assignment to Lenovo Innovations Ltd. (Hong Kong) was recorded in the Patent & Trademark Office on September 11, 2014 at reel 0033720, frame 0767. Appeal2015-001047 Application 13/057,845 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a gesture input operation device, method, program, and portable device based on the identification of cells traced by a gesture. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A gesture operation input device which executes an input operation of information on a display screen via a pointing device, wherein at least two cells to which identification information is attached respectively are set on said display screen, compnsmg: a gesture route rule storage unit which stores a gesture route rule that defines a route of said cell which is traced on said display screen at an input operation by said identification information on each cell for a gesture including graphics and signs; an operation route information storage unit which temporarily stores said identification information of each designated cell as the route information of input operation when said cell in said display screen is successively selected by said pointing device in accordance with input of the gesture on said display screen; and a gesture judgment unit which judges that a gesture drawn on said display screen is the gesture defined by said gesture route rule in a case when said gesture route rule and the route information of said input operation are compared and accorded, wherein identification information of the cell, which is further caused by input operational fluctuations, is added when tracing to said gesture route rule, and said gesture judgment unit permits the identification information of input operational fluctuation cells and compares said gesture route rule with the route information of said input operation in a case that the identification information of the cell which is traced by said input operational fluctuation is included in the route information of 2 Appeal2015-001047 Application 13/057,845 input operation stored in said operation route information storage unit after the input of the gesture to said display screen. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Dupouy us 6,057 ,845 May 2, 2000 Autio US 2005/0237308 Al Oct. 27, 2005 Breed US 2006/0284839 Al Dec. 21, 2006 Orr US 2008/0074384 Al Mar. 27, 2008 Tomohiko JP 2002-082734 Mar. 22, 2002 Masaaki JP 2006-172006 June 29, 2006 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Autio in view of Tomohiko and Dupouy. Final Act. 3-25. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Autio in view ofTomohiko, Dupouy, and Masaaki. Final Act. 25-26. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Autio in view of Tomohiko, Dupouy, and Breed. Final Act. 26-27. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Autio in view ofTomohiko, Dupouy, and Orr. Final Act. 28-30. 3 Appeal2015-001047 Application 13/057,845 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We disagree with Appellant's arguments with respect to the pending claims, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-30), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's arguments (Ans. 2--4). We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Dupouy teaches that the "identification information of the cell ... is added" and a "gesture judgment unit" that uses "information of the cell," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 4---6. The gravamen of Appellant's argument is that Dupouy determines when gestures intersect the axes which is different than dividing the screen into cells and identifying information on which cells are traced and added: That is, even if, assuming arguendo, a block in Dupouy corresponds to the claimed cell, Dupouy does not teach or suggest adding identification information of the block (i.e., the claimed cell) when tracing to a gesture route rule. To the contrary, Dupouy discloses that the system determines the sequence of the input gesture that intersects the axes (not identification information of the block), and then compares the determined sequence with the stored sequences in the universal command files to determine the gesture (column 6, line 63 - column 8, line 54). Since the information about 4 Appeal2015-001047 Application 13/057,845 intersection at the axes is not identification information of the block, Dupouy does not teach or suggest that "identification information of the cell, which is further caused by input operational fluctuations, is added when tracing to said gesture route rule." Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted); see also App. Br. 13-14. The Examiner finds Dupouy teaches using identification information of the cell. Final Act. 5---6 (citing Dupouy Fig. 4c--4e, 6:63-8:54); Ans. 2--4. More specifically, the Examiner finds Dupouy teaches dividing a screen into blocks by creating multiple axes, shown as axes a, b, c, and d in Figure 4d. Ans. 2. The Examiner further finds Dupouy matches a trace pattern to which axes are crossed and in what order and that is the equivalent of cells. Ans. 2-5. Although Dupouy does not use the terms cells, the reference identifies the cells traced by a gesture by identifying the axes that are crossed. Dupouy Fig. 4d, 6:63-8:54. Because the axes mark the border of cells/blocks, identification of the axes that are crossed is the same as identification of the cells that are entered. There is no requirement in an obviousness analysis for the prior art to "contain a description of the subject matter of the appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis." In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978). Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 7-9, 12, and 13, which are argued on the same grounds (App. Br. 14--17), along with claims 3 and 4, which are not argued separately (App. Br. 18). 5 Appeal2015-001047 Application 13/057,845 With respect to dependent claims 5, 6, 10, and 11, Appellant merely contend that because the additional references used in the rejections of these claims (Masaaki, Breed, and Orr) do not cure the deficiencies in claims 1 or 9, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 18-19. Because we determine there are no deficiencies associated with claims 1 and 9 for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1and3-13. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6