Ex Parte OtaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201712948472 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation