Ex Parte Webb et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2017

12977601 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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. 12/977,601 12/23/2010 Jonathan Webb DYOUNG 3.0-055 9640 530 7590 03/22/2017 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK 600 SOUTH AVENUE WEST WESTFIELD, NJ 07090 EXAMINER SHEN, YUZHEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2017 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): eOfficeAction @ ldlkm. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONATHAN WEBB, MATTHEW BROOKS, GREAME ANKERS, and PETER JOHN MARSHALL Appeal 2016-004074 Application 12/977,6011 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, KAMRAN JIVANI, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of claims 1—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to the operation of a portable electronic device having a touch sensitive rear surface for detecting a tapping of the surface when there has been a loss and reacquisition of touch and for detecting the position of the touch as being the position at which 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-004074 Application 12/977,601 touch was lost. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A portable electronic device, comprising: a display on a first, front side of the device; a touch sensitive surface on a second, rear side of said device substantially opposite said first side, the touch sensitive surface having a similar shape and orientation to said display; a touch input mapper arranged to map a position of a detected touch on said touch sensitive surface to a position on said display; and a tapping detector; wherein said tapping detector is arranged in operation to detect a tap as when there has been a loss and reacquisition of touch from a user on said touch sensitive surface; and said tapping detector is arranged in operation to detect the position of a detected tap on said touch sensitive surface as being the position at which touch was lost. REJECTION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rekimoto et al. (US 2003/0234768 Al; published Dec. 25, 2003) (hereinafter “Rekimoto”) and Sato et al. (US 2006/0007182 Al; published Jan. 12, 2006) (hereinafter “Sato”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the 2 Appeal 2016-004074 Application 12/977,601 Examiner in (1) the April 1, 2015 Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.” 2—12) and (2) the December 9, 2015 Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—14). We highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. (1) Detecting a tap upon a loss and reacquisition of touch Appellants argue the combination of Rekimoto and Sato fails to teach or suggest “detect[ing] a tap as when there has been a loss and reacquisition of touch,” as recited in claim l.2 As to Rekimoto, Appellants argue it instead (i) teaches a two-state sequence (i.e., “no touch” - “touch”) for detecting a touch, whether for selecting a displayed feature or dragging a displayed feature, and (ii) thus, teaches away from the claimed “loss and reacquisition of touch” three-state sequence (“touch” - “no touch” - “touch”). Br. 7—11 (citing Rekimoto 38-41, 68; Figs. 4A-4B). As to Sato, Appellants argue it also teaches a two-state sequence for detecting (i) a tap for single tap operation like Rekimoto and (ii) two taps for a double tap operation — “a double tap operation merely carries out the single tap operation twice in a row,” within a predetermined period of time and/or distance, without “changing] the nature of either individual tap operation.” Br. 13—17 (citing Sato Figs. 2A—2B, || 44, 45, 48, 92—95). Appellants further underscore their argument regarding the nature of Sato’s individual taps by arguing Sato teaches if a user pauses too long or moves too far between taps, then it would be deemed to be two separate, single tap operations. Br. 15—16 (citing Sato 148). 2 Appellants group the remaining independent claims (10 and 14), as well as dependent claims 2—9 and 11—13 with claim 1 as being representative for our consideration of their arguments. Br. 5. 3 Appeal 2016-004074 Application 12/977,601 The Examiner finds, and we agree, that both Rekimoto and Sato, as well as their combined teachings, teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Ans. 12—13. As to Rekimoto, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it teaches a touch sensor that determines a touch “based on the detection of the intensity difference between a touch signal S2 and a non-touch signal SO.” Ans. 12 (citing Rekimoto || 38-44, Fig. 4A). We agree with the Examiner that “[i]t would [have been] obvious to one skilled in the art that Rekimoto’s touch sensor is capable of detecting a tap action that involves an initial touch (SO —> S2), a release of touch or a loss of touch (S2 —> SO), and a re-touch (SO -► S2).” We also agree with the Examiner that Sato teaches, or at least suggests, the disputed limitation by teaching for a double tap operation “a touch, a release of touch or a loss of touch, and a re-touch within a predetermined time period on the same point or on the two points separated from each other within a predetermined distance.” Ans. 13 (citing Sato Figs. 2B, 8A— 8D, || 33, 45, 48, 92—95). Simply put, Sato teaches detecting a tap, which is the second tap for a double tap operation, based on loss of a touch (i.e., releasing the first touch for a double tap operation) and reacquiring a touch (i.e., the second tap for the double tap operation). See Sato Figs. 2B, 8A-8D, || 33, 45, 48, 92-95. We find Appellants’ arguments regarding Sato’s time duration and distance limitation inapposite, and that Sato’s teachings meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitation. We also find Appellants’ arguments that Rekimoto teaches away from the disputed limitation unpersuasive. Teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the claimed 4 Appeal 2016-004074 Application 12/977,601 solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We find no evidence of record that Rekimoto criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the disputed limitation. (2) Detectins the position of a detected tap Appellants argue the combination of Rekimoto and Sato fails to teach or suggest “detect[ing] the position of a detected tap on said touch sensitive surface as being the position at which touch was lost,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 12, 15. As to Rekimoto, Appellants argue it teaches instead “that the position of the detected tap corresponds to where the user’s finger presses hardest on the touch sensitive surface” during the touch. Br. 12 (citing Rekimoto Figs. 4A-4B). Appellants further argue “the timing at which the position of the detected tap is established will necessarily be different in the claim to that in Rekimoto.'’’ Id. As to Sato, Appellants argue it, like Rekimoto, teaches detecting the position of the tap as the point of contact during the touch state. Br. 14 (citing Sato Fig. 2A, 144); see also Br. 17 (arguing that the second tap’s position “would have to be used as the position of the double tap”). The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Rekimoto and Sato teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 12—13; Non-Final 4. As to Rekimoto, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it teaches detecting the position of the tap based upon the finger position of the touch — this teaching at least suggests the position also is where touch was lost when the finger does not move on the surface. Ans. 12 (citing Rekimoto Fig. 4A). As to Sato, the Examiner finds, and we agree, the position of the release of touch and re-touch can be “on the same point,” and thus, the position of the detected tap would be the position at which touch was lost. Ans. 13 (citing 5 Appeal 2016-004074 Application 12/977,601 Sato Fig. 2B (teaching that the points for touch, release, and re-touch can be “the same position”)); see also id. Non-final Act. 4 (citing Sato Figs. 2B, 8A-8D; 1145, 48, 92-95). CONCLUSION Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the remaining claims on appeal, as Appellants did not provide separate arguments for their patentability. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14 under 35U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6