Ex Parte Sobel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 2016

13088152 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/088, 152 04/15/2011 22879 7590 05/27/2016 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Irwin E. Sobel 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. 82264826 7828 EXAMINER EARLES,BRYANE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2016 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IRWIN E. SOBEL and KAR-HAN TAN Appeal2014-005446 Application 13/088,152 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-005446 Application 13/088,152 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention generally relates to a system and method for focus-based touch detection to distinguish between a touch event (e.g., a user's finger contacting a surface of a display (Spec., Fig. 3A; i-f 21 )) and a hover event (e.g., a user's finger positioned close to, but not touching the surface of the display (Spec., Fig. 4A; i-f 22)). Spec. i-f 16. A reference pattern is embedded along a border area of the display and a camera captures images including the reference pattern and a detected object (e.g., the user's finger). Spec. i-f 17. Based on focus information of the reference pattern and the detected object, the system determines whether a touch event or a hover event has occurred. Spec. i-f 16. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A system for providing focus-based touch detection in a computing system, the system comprising: a surface having a reference pattern formed thereon; an imaging device including a field of view capable of simultaneous capture of an image of the reference pattern and an object positioned within proximity of a designated contact area associated with the surface; and a processing unit to compare a focus-depth of the reference pattern with a focus-depth of the object to determine ifthe object is touching or hovering the contact area of the surface. Rejection Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Large (US 2012/0127084 Al; May 24, 2 Appeal2014-005446 Application 13/088,152 2012), Bamji (US 2011/0291988 Al; Dec. 1, 2011), and Pihlaja (US 2011/0316679 Al; Dec. 29, 2011). Final Act. 3-13. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10--15, 19, and 20 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Large, Bamji, and Pihlaja teaches or suggests "a processing unit to compare a focus-depth of the reference pattern with a focus-depth of the object to determine if the object is touching or hovering the contact area of the surface," as recited in claim 1? Appellants contend the combination of Large, Bamji, and Pihlaja fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations because the combination of references fails to teach or suggest comparing a focus-depth of a reference pattern with a focus-depth of the object. App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 3-8. Appellants' Specification does not expressly define the term "focus- depth." Nonetheless, the Specification refers to "focus-depth" as a distance from a surface of the display device at which an object is in-focus. See Spec., Fig. lB, elements 125a, 125b; i-fi-f 19, 22. Further, "focus-depth," also referred to "depth of focus," is generally defined as "[t]he range of distance lying along the axis of a lens over which an image remains in acceptable focus. "2 As such, we find the broadest reasonable definition of "focus- depth," consistent with the Specification, includes a range of distance (e.g., a distance) lying along the axis of a lens at which an image remains in acceptable focus. Large relates to an interactive display device. Large, Abstract. The 2 Depth of Focus, The Penguin Dictionary of Physics, (2009). 3 Appeal2014-005446 Application 13/088,152 interactive display device includes a variable diffuser placed optically between the display panel and a camera. Large i-f 31. The camera captures images of an object at a range of variable diffuser states between a fully off state (e.g., the variable diffuser is transparent to incident light) and a fully on state (e.g., the variable diffuser is completely diffuse to incident light). Large i-f 3 5. Large teaches that by comparing the gradient content of the images, proximity of the object may be measured and touch events determined. Large i-f 34. Large further teaches that the calculation of the distance the object is away from the screen can be made "by looking at how 'in focus' the objects are, wherein objects farther from the display remain blurry for longer than objects closer to the display as the variable diffuser is changed from more diffuse to less diffuse." Large i-f 35. As such, Large teaches or suggests determining a focus-depth of an object to determine if the object is touching or hovering a contact area of a surface of a display. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Bamji teaches an imaging device having a field of view capable of simultaneous capture of an image of an object and a fiducial marker (e.g., a reference pattern) formed on a surface of a display device. Ans. 4, 14--15 (citing Bamji, Figs. 7A, 8; i-f 58). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Pihlaja teaches a process of comparing a position of a user-object to a parameter of a user interface object displayed on a display surface, in order to distinguish between a touch event and a hovering event. Ans. 16 (citing Pihlaja i-fi-146, 56-59; Figs. 2, 3). Thus, the combination of Large, Bamji, and Pihlaja teaches or suggests determining a distance of an object and a reference pattern based on how in-focus the objects appear in an image (e.g., determining a focus-depth of the object and the reference pattern) and comparing the focus-depth of the object to a 4 Appeal2014-005446 Application 13/088,152 parameter (e.g., focus-depth) of the reference pattern to distinguish between a touch event and a hover event. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Large, Bamji, and Pihlaja teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 12-15, 19, and 20, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 12- 15, 19, and 20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Regarding the rejection of claims 10 and 11, Appellants substantially rely on the arguments discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10 and 11 for the reasons discussed supra. Claims 4, 7, 8, and 16--18 Issue: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Large, Bamji, and Pihlaja teaches or suggests "a focus control module configured to adjust a focus-depth associated with the detected object," as recited in claim 4? The Examiner finds Large teaches using a variable diffuser to adjust the amount of diffusion so that objects at different depths can be detected by how in focus they are at each depth and, therefore teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 7 (citing Large i-f 3 5). Appellants contend the combination of Large, Bamji, and Pihlaja fails 5 Appeal2014-005446 Application 13/088,152 to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 10- 11. According to Appellants, Large teaches determining a distance of an object from a surface of a display based on determining how long an image of the object remains blurry as the variable diffuser is adjusted. Id. (citing Large i-f 35). Appellants contend adjusting the variable diffuser, as taught by Large, does not teach or suggest adjusting a focus-depth associated with a detected object, as required by claim 4. Id. We find Appellants' contention persuasive. As discussed supra, the broadest reasonable definition of "focus- depth," consistent with the Specification, includes a range of distance lying along the axis of a lens at which an image is in acceptable focus. We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 10-11) that Large does not teach or suggest adjusting the variable diffuser to adjust the range of distance at which the image is in acceptable focus. Instead, Large merely teaches adjusting the variable diffuser to determine the focus-depth of the object. See Large i-f 35. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4; claim 16 which recites a substantially similar limitation; and claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 which depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 4 and 16. Claims 6 and 17 Did the Examiner err by finding that the combination of Large, Bamji, and Pihlaja teaches or suggests "wherein the processing unit registers a hover condition when the reference pattern and the detected body part have focus-depths that are different but within a threshold value of each other," as recited in claim 6? 6 Appeal2014-005446 Application 13/088,152 Appellants contend the combination of Large, Bamji, and Pihlaja fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because "the cited references do not determine any specific focus-depth and certainly do not compare a difference in focus-depths to a threshold value to determine a hover condition," as required by claim 6. App. Br. 15. We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. As discussed supra, the combination of Large, Bamji, and Pihlaja teaches or suggests comparing a focus-depth of a reference pattern with a focus-depth of an object to determine if the object is touching or hovering the contact area of the surface. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Pihlaja teaches determining that an object is within a hover area or range by comparing a proxy detecting signal to a threshold value. Ans. 8 (citing Pihlaja i-f 38). The combined teachings of Large, Bamji, and Pihlaja, therefore, teach or suggest determining that an object is within a hover area (e.g., a hover condition) when the reference pattern and the object (e.g., a detected body part (see Pihlaja, Figs. 4a-h)) have focus-depths that are different but within a threshold value of each other. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6. Appellants state the arguments presented for claim 6 apply to claim 17. App. Br. 16. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 for the same reasons. 7 Appeal2014-005446 Application 13/088,152 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-15, 19, and 20. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 7, 8, and 16-18. 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-IN-PART 8