Ex Parte Ota

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

12948472 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 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.
12/948,472 11/17/2010 Takaaki Ota 7114-104072-US 3908
37123 7590 05/30/2017
FITCH EVEN TAB IN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
SHAPIRO, LEONID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKAAKI OTA
Appeal 2017-004071
Application 12/948,472
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, BETH Z. SHAW, and JOSEPH P.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3—6, 8—14, 16—19, 21—27, 29—32, and 34—39, which are the only
claims currently pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention relates to non-contact interaction with a capacitive
touch screen user interface. Spec. 11. Claim 11, which is illustrative, reads
as follows:
1. A method of interacting with a display,
comprising:
Appeal 2017-004071
Application 12/948,472
detecting a manipulation of at least one object in at least
one trajectory in detectable proximity to a display;
identifying a target point according to the trajectory and
a nonzero distance from the display; and
responsively performing an interface event at the target
point;
wherein the identifying further comprises interpolative
triangulation of a position of the object based on the trajectory
and the nonzero distance from the display;
wherein the display is a capacitive touch screen display;
wherein the nonzero distance from the display is
determined based on capacitance measured by capacitive sensor
electrodes of a touch sensor of the capacitive touch screen
display; and
wherein a plurality of distances is determined based on a
plurality of capacitance threshold values measured by the
capacitive sensor electrodes.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3—6, 8—14, 16—19, 21, 22, 26, 27,
29—32, 34, 35, 37, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Arrasvuori (US 2012/0068941 Al, pub. Mar. 22, 2012) in view of Huska
(US 2011/0227872 Al, pub. Sept. 22, 2011), and Peterson (US
2006/0267953 Al, pub. Nov. 30, 2006). Final Act. 2-A.
The Examiner has rejected claims 10-12, 23—25, 36, and 38 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arrasvuori, Huska, Peterson, and
Nurmi (US 2012/0102436 Al, pub. Apr. 26, 2012). Final Act. 4.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are in error. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the
Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
2
Appeal 2017-004071
Application 12/948,472
rejection from which appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. See Ans. 3—4, Final Act. 2—\.
The Examiner finds that Arrasvuori teaches identifying “a non-zero
distance from the display,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2 (citing
Arrasvuori Fig. 2,127). The Examiner also finds that the combination of
Arrasvuori, Huska, and Peterson teaches the disputed limitations of “wherein
the nonzero distance from the display is determined based on capacitance
measured by capacitive sensor electrodes of a touch sensor of the capacitive
touch screen display; and wherein a plurality of distances is determined
based on a plurality of capacitance threshold values measured by the
capacitive sensor electrodes,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 3^4
(citing Peterson, Fig. 1, Fig. 2a, 122).
Appellant argues that Peterson does not disclose determining a
nonzero distance from the display based on threshold values. App. Br. 9.
Appellant also argues that Peterson merely differentiates a touch from a
hover and is therefore insufficient to teach determining a “distance” as
recited in the claims. Id. at 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Arrasvuori teaches identifying a nonzero distance
from the display (Final Act. 2) and we also note that Arrasvuori teaches
using a capacitive proximity detection system. Arrasvuori 125. We also
agree with the Examiner’s findings that Peterson teaches the disputed
limitations because Peterson teaches express thresholds (240—220 in Fig. 2a)
that “directly correlate to nonzero distances above the display.” Ans. 4.
3
Appeal 2017-004071
Application 12/948,472
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s
interpretation results in a “valueless concept.” Reply Br. 1. Rather,
Peterson shows thresholds that represent a value. Peterson, Fig. 2a, 122.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s general, conclusory, statement
that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight (App. Br. 11)
because the Examiner’s reasons for combining teachings from Arrasvuori,
Huska, and Peterson are based on the teachings of the references. Final Act.
3 (citing Huska 19; Peterson 13); Ans. 4. These reasons do not include
knowledge gleaned only from the Appellant’s disclosure. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have
been motivated to combine Arrasvuori, Huska, and Peterson.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, the rejections of the remaining pending claims, which
were not argued separately.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—6, 8—14, 16—19,
21—27, 29—32, and 34—39 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
4