Ex Parte Veeramani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 2019

14226008 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/226,008 03/26/2014 45457 7590 01/31/2019 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/Intel P.O. Box 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 Karthik Veeramani 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. 884.Q30US1 9415 EXAMINER SADIO,INSA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2019 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte KARTHIK VEERAMANI, UJWAL PAIDIPATHI, and AJIT PRAKASH JOSHI Appeal2018-005863 Application 14/226,008 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LINZYT. McCARTNEY, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1--4, 6-15, and 17-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2018-005863 Application 14/226,008 BACKGROUND The present patent application concerns "a mechanism to enhance [the] user experience of mobile devices through complex inputs from external displays." Specification ,r 1, filed March 26, 2014. Claims 1, 10, 20, and 22 are independent. Claim 10 illustrates the claimed invention: 10. A method of mapping user movements captured by a capture device external to a computing device, to input events on the computing device, the method comprising: executing an application on the computing device, using at least one processor of the computing device; establishing a video channel between the computing device and a receiver device external to the computing device; transmitting, from the computing device, video data of the application to the receiver device external to the computing device; establishing an input channel between the computing device and the receiver device; receiving, via the input channel at the computing device from the receiver device, gesture data associated with the application, the gesture data based on movements of a user captured from a capture device, external to the computing device, communicatively coupled to the receiver device; mapping the gesture data to an input event on the computing device; and providing data simulating the input event to a sensor on the computing device. Appeal Brief 19-20, filed November 20, 2017 ("App. Br."). 2 Appeal2018-005863 Application 14/226,008 1-3, 6-13, and 17-24 4, 14, 15, and 25 REJECTIONS Â§ 103 Â§ 103 DISCUSSION Yu 1 and Westerman 2 Yu, Westerman, and Saukko3 We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments, and for the reasons expressed below, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. Claim 10 recites "receiving, via the input channel at the computing device from the receiver device, gesture data associated with the application, the gesture data based on movements of a user captured from a capture device, external to the computing device, communicatively coupled to the receiver device." App. Br. 19-20. Claim 10 also recites "mapping the gesture data to an input event on the computing device" and "providing data simulating the input event to a sensor on the computing device." App. Br. 20. Appellants contend the Examiner's combination of Yu and Westerman does not teach or suggest these steps. App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 2-3, filed May 18, 2018 ("Reply Br."). Appellants argue the Examiner ignored that the recited "gesture data" comes from a device "external to the computing device." App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3. Appellants also contend that Westerman does not teach or suggest the "providing" step because the cited 1 Yu et al. (US 2014/0130073 Al; May 8, 2014). 2 Westerman et al. (US 2008/0309632 Al; Dec. 18, 2008). 3 Saukko et al. (US 2014/0043277 Al; Feb. 13, 2014). 3 Appeal2018-005863 Application 14/226,008 parts of Westerman do not discuss providing simulated input event data to a sensor. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2. We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. For the "receiving" step, the Examiner mapped Yu's network server 304 to the recited "computing device" and Yu's receiver device 102 to the recited "receiver device." See Final Office Action. 1-7, mailed May 24, 2017 (citing Yu ,r,r 37, 38, 59, Fig. 4) ("Final Act."); Answer 5---6, mailed March 20, 2018 (citing Yu ,r 38) ("Ans."). Although the cited parts of Yu disclose that receiver device 102 detects user actions such as gestures, the cited parts of Yu do not teach or suggest that network server 304 receives the detected user actions from receiver device 102. See Yu ,r,r 37, 38, 59, Fig. 4. The Examiner has not provided a persuasive reason that it would have been obvious to modify Yu so that network server 304 receives this data from receiver device 102. See Final Act. 1-7; Ans. 5---6. As for the "mapping" and "providing" steps, the Examiner found Westerman teaches the "mapping" step because Westerman discloses detecting gestures. Final Act. 7 ( citing Westerman ,r 27). The Examiner found Westerman teaches the "providing" step because Westerman determines whether a sensor has detected a touch event, where the "sensor can be viewed as a picture element ... which can be particularly useful when touch sensor panel ... is viewed as capturing an 'image' of touch." Westerman ,r 32; Final Act. 7 (citing Westerman ,r 32). Even if detecting gestures involves mapping gesture data to an input event as found by the Examiner, the Examiner has not pointed to anything in Westerman that teaches or suggests providing data simulating that input event to a sensor on the computing device. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 5-6. 4 Appeal2018-005863 Application 14/226,008 For the above reasons, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 and its dependent claims. Because the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 20, and 22 suffers from similar deficiencies, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims and their respective dependent claims. CONCLUSION 1-3, 6-13, Â§ 103 Yu and 1-3, 6-13, and 17-24 Westerman and 17-24 4, 14, 15, Yu, 4, 14, 15, Â§ 103 Westerman, and25 and25 and Saukko Summary 1--4, 6-15, and 17-25 REVERSED 5