Ex Parte Bathiche et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2017

13974994 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 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.
13/974,994 08/23/2013 Steven Nabil Bathiche 339973USCIP 4475
69316 7590 05/16/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
SNYDER, STEVEN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN NABIL BATHICHE, PANOS C. PANAY,
RALF GROENE, HUA WANG, TIMOTHY C. SHAW,
DAVID M. LANE, and YOUNG SOO KIM
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,9941
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, 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 Final Rejection of claims 1—14, 21—24, and 26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to an input device with an
interchangeable surface that is removable and connectable, physically, to the
base of the input device. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of subject
matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
identifying, by a computing device communicatively and
physically coupled to an input device and without user input, an
interchangeable surface that has been physically connected to
an input device base of the input device, the input device base
having a plurality of sensors configured to initiate respective
inputs;
obtaining a mapping of indications of inputs of the
interchangeable surface to respective one or more said sensors
of the input device base based at least in part on the identifying;
and
applying the obtained mapping such that the computing
device associates the indications associated with the
interchangeable surface with the respective one or more sensors
of the input device without user input.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1,2, 4—6, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Pirie et al. (GB
2178570 A; published Feb. 11, 1987) (hereinafter “Pirie”) and Bimbaum
(US 2011/0095994; published Apr. 28, 2011).
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Pirie, Bimbaum, and Callaghan
et al. (US 2009/0182901 Al; published July 16, 2009) (hereinafter
“Callaghan”).
2
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Pirie, Bimbaum, and Aull et
al. (US 2005/0057521 Al; published Mar. 17, 2005) (hereinafter “Aull”).
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Pirie,
Callaghan, and Daley, III (US 2009/0009476 Al; published Jan. 8, 2009)
(hereinafter “Daley”).
(5) The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Pirie, Callaghan, Daley, and
Aull.
(6) The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Pirie, Callaghan, and
Weng et al. (US 2004/0190239 Al; published Sept. 30, 2004) (hereinafter
“Weng”).
(7) The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Pirie, Callaghan, Weng, and
Aull.
(8) The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Pirie, Callaghan, Weng, and
Daley.
(9) The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Pirie, Bimbaum, and
Amazon.com, Writer 1 for iPad 1 keyboard + Case (Aluminum
Bluetooth Keyboard, Quick Eject and Easy Angle Function!),
https://web.archive.Org/web/20120817053825/http://www.amazon.com/keyb
3
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
oard-Aluminum-Bluetooth-Keyboard-Function/dp/B004OQLSLG (last
visited Jan. 15, 2015) (hereinafter “Writer”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we have
considered 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
Examiner in (1) the June 10, 2015 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—26)
and (2) the May 18, 2016 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2—38). We highlight
and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Applying the obtained mapping
Appellants argue the combination of Pirie and Bimbaum fails to teach
or suggest “applying the obtained mapping such that the computing device
associates the indications associated with the interchangeable surface with
the respective one or more sensors of the input device without user input,” as
recited in claim 1. Br. 14—17. More specifically, Appellants argue
Bimbaum instead teaches that Bimbaum’s skin merely changes the user
interface displayed, and “[t]he sensor inputs are still mapped to whatever
interface is displayed on the screen not to one or more sensors of the
device.” Id. at 16 (citing Bimbaum |28).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combination, and
Bimbaum in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 24.
More specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Bimbaum teaches or
suggests “a touch screen device with interchangeable skins that cause
4
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
different resulting inputs from a press of the same location . . . Id. (citing
Bimbaum Figs. 4—5 (showing different configurations); 28, 47-48
(teaching “a QWERTY keyboard configuration and a mobile device with a
phone configuration”)); see also Final Act. 4 (citing Bimbaum 140). We
agree with the Examiner that Bimbaum teaches, or at least suggests, that
“[t]he inputs to the device must be changed depending on which skin is
currently in place. Otherwise, changing between a QWERTY keyboard and
a phone configuration would not operate correctly.” Ans. 24. We, thus, also
are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that the combination would not
achieve the desired result because “[t]he input device would not perform a
mapping process.” Br. 17—18.
(2) Combining Pirie and Birnbaum
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine the relevant
teachings of Pirie and Bimbaum. Br. 17. According to Appellants,
“Bimbaum suggests nothing about the device obtaining a mapping based on
the overlay present on the input device [, and] . . . makes no mention of an
input device or mapping sensors to the overlay.” Id. Appellants also argue
“[njeither reference suggests combining one with the other.” Id.
The Examiner finds that Pirie and Bimbaum’s relevant teachings are
properly combined. Final Act. 5; Ans. 25. More specifically, the Examiner
finds “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art... to
modify the teachings of Pirie to include the teachings of Bimbaum ... to
provide a simple means for the processor to determine which
interchangeable surface is currently attached without requiring user input (as
Bimbaum states ‘automatically’). Such automatic approaches eliminate user
error.” Final Act. 5.
5
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
We find the Examiner provides “articulated reasoning [(e.g., eliminate
user error)] with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion
of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We agree
with the Examiner that there is sufficient motivation to combine the relevant
teachings of Pirie and Bimbaum. See Final Act. 5; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); see also In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).
(3) Mapping is stored as part of the interchangeable surface
Appellants argue the combination of Pirie, Bimbaum, and Callaghan
fails to teach or suggest that “the mapping is stored as part of the
interchangeable surface,” as recited in dependent claim 3. Br. 18—19.
Specifically, Appellants argue Callaghan instead teaches that an input device
(e.g., keyboard) sends its mapping to a computing device, and “different
mappings come from different input devices completely.” Br. 18—19 (citing
Callaghan 126). Appellants contend Callaghan “makes no mention of
interchangeable surfaces for any of the input devices described,” and that
“an input device is not analogous to an interchangeable surface of an input
device.” Br. 19.
The Examiner finds the combination of Pirie, Bimbaum, and
Callaghan teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 9. As
to Callaghan, the Examiner finds it teaches, or at least suggests, that “the
6
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
mapping is stored as part of the interchangeable surface” via its teaching that
the “keypad may transmit customization parameters to the computing
device.” Id. (citing Callaghan || 26—29). The Examiner finds one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious “to modify the
teachings of Pirie and Bimbaum to include the teachings of Callaghan so
that a mapping is stored as part of the interchangeable surface ... to avoid
losing memory space of the computing device due to saving multiple key
mappings for different interchangeable surfaces.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
Additionally, we find Callaghan teaches or suggests that the keypad can
transmit stored customization parameters (e.g., mappings) to the computing
device. See Callaghan || 26 (“[T]he keypad may transmit one or more of
the customization parameters directly to the computing device.”), 28 (“The
operating system can be aware of the keypad currently in place and
automatically switch input mappings of the physical keying.”)). We are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments, including that Callaghan does not
teach interchangeable surfaces. The Examiner’s findings are based on the
combined teachings of Pirie, Bimbaum, and Callaghan, which teach or
suggest interchangeable surfaces. See, e.g., Bimbaum || 28, 40; see also In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non­
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (finding the
relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of the references). Furthermore, Callaghan also at least suggests
7
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
interchangeable surfaces. See Callaghan 129 (“Passive keypads may
include, but are not limited to, cover plates, templates, slip on covers, clip-on
covers, indexing templates, skins, and the like.”).
Our above findings and reasoning regarding Pirie and Callaghan also
apply to Appellants’ same, or substantially similar, arguments made with
respect to claim 21.
(4) Daley’s teaching regarding connection portion
Appellants argue the combination of Pirie, Callaghan, and Daley fails
to teach or suggest that:
the interchangeable surface having a plurality of indications of
inputs that are to be initiated via respective ones of the plurality
of sensors and an identifier usable to identify a mapping
corresponding to the input device, the identifier communicable
to the computing device via the connection portion and the
mapping effective to change the respective inputs associated
with the plurality of sensors based on the identifier without user
input[,]
as recited in dependent claim 10. Br. 20-21. More specifically, Appellants
argue none of the cited references teach “an interchangeable surface input
device that communicates key mapping automatically based on an identifier
associated with the interchangeable surface used.” Id. at 21. As to
Callaghan, Appellants argue it instead teaches identifying the input device
— “not a surface applied to the input device” — and “also fails to change
the respective inputs based on the identification.” Id. As to Daley,
Appellants argue that although it may teach connecting an input device to a
computing device through a connection portion, “Daley does not teach or
suggest sending an identifier changing respective inputs through the
connection portion.” Br. 21.
8
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
The Examiner finds the combination of Pirie, Callaghan, and Daley
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 11—14; Ans. 27—
29. The Examiner finds Callaghan teaches or suggests communicating a
keyboard identifier for automatically re-mapping inputs. See Ans. 28; Final
Act. 12 (citing Callaghan || 25—29). The Examiner concludes “it would
have been obvious to include the idea of communicating an identifier (as in
Callaghan) with the system of Pirie so that an identifier is used to identify an
overlay (as Pirie’s overlays) and the respective inputs are changed (as in
Pirie) based on the identifier.” Ans. 28; see also Final Act. 11 (citing Pirie
Figs. 1, 2, 3a, 3d, 4; 2,11. 59-64; 1,11. 100-116; 4,11. 27-49 (teaching Pirie’s
tailored keyboards)). As to Daley, the Examiner finds it teaches or suggests
connecting “an input device to a computing device through a connection
portion,” and such connection can be used for the relevant communications.
Ans. 29; Final Act. 13 (citing Daley Tflf 12, 89, 93). The Examiner finds “it
would have been obvious to use Daley’s connection portion with wiring and
connection plug in the system of Pirie and Callaghan to connect an input
device to a computing device.” Ans. 29.
We agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Pirie,
Callaghan, and Daley teach or suggest the disputed limitation, and we adopt
the Examiner’s findings as our own. See Pirie Figs. 1, 2, 3a, 3d, 4; 2,11. 59-
64; 1,11. 100-116; 4,11. 27-49; Callaghan H 25-29; Daley H 12, 89, 93.
Appellants incorrectly focus on the references individually instead of
addressing the combined teachings of Pirie, Callaghan, and Daley to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097 (“Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references”);
9
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (finding the relevant inquiry is whether the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art
in light of the combined teachings of the references). For example,
Appellants focus on Callaghan’s teaching of a keyboard identifier —
arguing it is not an interchangeable surface identifier — without
persuasively addressing the combined teachings of Callaghan’s identifier
and Pirie’s interchangeable surface to one of ordinary skill in the art. Br. 21;
see also Preda, 401 F.2d at 826 (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).
Our above findings and reasoning with respect to Pirie and Callaghan
also apply to Appellants’ same, or substantially similar, arguments made
with respect to claim 21.
(5) Combining Pirie, Callaghan, and Daley
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in combining Pirie,
Callaghan, and Daley because (i) there is no motivation to combine these
references, (ii) the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight, and (iii) the
combination would not achieve the desired result — “[cjombining Pirie,
Callaghan, and Daley would merely produce an input device connected to a
touch-screen device with an interface-changing overlay capability through a
physical hinge.” Br. 21—22.
The Examiner finds Pirie, Callaghan, and Daley are properly
combined. Ans. 30; Final Act. 13—14. The Examiner finds “it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art... to modify the teachings of
Pirie to include the teachings of Callaghan so that an interchangeable input
surface contains its own identifier that is sent to the computing device ... to
10
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
provide a means for enabling device customization simply and
automatically.” Final Act. 13 (citing Callaghan || 23—24). The Examiner
also finds “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
... to modify the teachings of Pirie and Callaghan to include the teachings
of Daley so that a physical, communicative, and removable connection
would be used between a computing device and an input device ... to make
the keyboard device replaceable or exchangeable and to make the computing
system less expensive.” Final Act. 14 (citing Daley 112).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner
provides “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. For example,
the Examiner reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine (i) Pirie and Callaghan to enable device customization
simply and automatically and (ii) Daley with Pirie and Callaghan to make
the keyboard device exchangeable and to make the system less expensive.
See Final Act. 13—14. Appellants’ conclusory argument that the Examiner
uses impermissible hindsight is premised on a lack of articulated reasoning
to combine the references, and thus, is unpersuasive. Further, Appellants’
argument that the combination would not achieve the desired result is
unpersuasive. Appellants cast the references’ teachings too narrowly
without addressing persuasively what would be taught or suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[I]n many cases a
person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.”); Preda, 401 F.2d at 826 (“[I]t is proper to
take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
11
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
therefrom.”); see also Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (combining the teachings of
references does not require an ability to combine their specific structures).
Our above findings and reasoning also apply to Appellants’ same, or
substantially similar, arguments made with respect to dependent claim 12.
(6) Pressure sensitive sensors
Appellants argue the combination of Pirie, Callaghan, Daley, and Aull
fails to teach or suggest that “the plurality of sensors are pressure sensitive
sensors that are each configured to communicate different amounts of
pressure as part of the respective inputs responsive to contact from the user,”
as recited in dependent claim 12. Br. 22—24. More specifically, Appellants
argue (i) the combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation,
(ii) there is no motivation to combine the cited references, and (iii) the
Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight. Id. at 24.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Pirie,
Callaghan, Daley, and Aull teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See
Final Act. 16; Ans. 31—32. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Aull teaches or suggests force-sensing keys (i.e., teaching or suggesting
pressure sensitive sensors) that can generate a range of signals
corresponding to the amount of force exerted on the key (i.e., teaching or
suggesting configured to communicate different amounts of pressure), with
the signals having meanings related to a character or function assigned to the
key. Id. (citing Aull 1 5).
Furthermore, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Pirie, Callaghan,
Daley, and Aull are properly combined. Final Act. 16—17; Ans. 31—32. The
motivations to combine Pirie, Callaghan, and Daley are discussed above.
See section (5), supra. As to Aull’s teachings, the Examiner finds, and we
12
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
agree, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
“modify the teachings of Pirie, Callaghan, and Daley to include the
teachings of Aull so that a mapping includes different amounts of pressure
applied to the key(s)... to increase the amount of data that a user can input
with a computer keyboard without adding more keys.” Final Act. 17 (citing
Aull 1 5); see also Ans. 31—32 (finding “it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to try variable pressure signals for user inputs in
virtually all systems that include buttons/keys/touchscreens for user input”).
Further, Appellants’ argument that the Examiner uses impermissible
hindsight is conclusory and unsupported by record evidence.
The foregoing findings and reasoning also apply to Appellants’ same,
or substantially similar, arguments made with respect to dependent claim 23.
(7) Wens’s teaching regarding connection portion
Appellants argue the combination of Pirie, Callaghan, and Weng fails
to teach or suggest:
[A]n interchangeable surface that is removable and connectable,
physically, to the input device base, the interchangeable
surface having a plurality of indications of inputs that are to
be initiated via respective ones of the plurality of sensors and
an identifier usable by the computing device to identify a
mapping corresponding to the input device, the identifier
communicated to the computing device via the connection
portion and the mapping effective to change the respective
inputs associated with the plurality of sensors based on the
identifier without user input[,]
as recited in independent claim 21. Br. 24—27 (quoting claim 21). More
specifically, Appellants argue “Weng does not provide a communicative
coupling through the connection portion, as the input device can only
communicate through infrared or some sort of other wireless technique.” Id.
13
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
at 26 (citing Weng | 6). Appellants also argue that (i) there is no motivation
to combine Weng with the other cited references, (ii) the Examiner relies on
impermissible hindsight in combining Weng, and (iii) combining the other
cited references with Weng “would not achieve the desired result” (i.e.,
instead would provide for infrared communication). Id. at 26—27.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combination of Pirie,
Callaghan, and Weng teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 33;
Final Act. 17—20. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Weng teaches or
suggests a detachable keyboard structure that provides a physical and
communicative coupling. Ans. 33 (citing Weng Fig. 1; || 23 (finding Weng
teaches magnets physically couple the keyboard to the main body), 6
(finding Weng teaches a communicative coupling is made via wireless
connection)). We agree with the Examiner that this teaching of Weng is
included within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “connection
portion” (i.e., “Weng’s magnetic connections as well as its wireless
connections can be reasonably interpreted as encompassing a connection
portion”). Ans. 33. We also agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Pirie and Callaghan to
include Weng’s teachings “so that a physical, communicative, and
removable connection would be used between a computing device and an
input device via magnets ... to provide a keyboard structure with a simple,
yet effective way for detaching from and attaching to a laptop computer.”
Final Act. 20 (citing Weng | 8); Ans. 34—35. In light of our finding
regarding the breadth of “connection portion,” we are unpersuaded that the
combination “would not achieve the desired result,” as argued by
Appellants. We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
14
Appeal 2017-000866
Application 13/974,994
Examiner uses impermissible hindsight because this argument is conclusory
and unsupported by record evidence.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings and reasoning above: we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of (i) claim 1, as well as claims 2, 4—6, and 9, as
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for their patentability;
(ii) claim 3; (iii) claims 7 and 8, as Appellants do not provide separate
arguments for their patentability; (iv) claim 10, as well as claims 11, 13, and
14, as Appellants do not provide separate arguments for their patentability;
(v) claim 12; (vi) claim 21, as well as claim 22, as Appellants do not provide
separate arguments for its patentability; (vii) claim 23; (viii) claim 24, as
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for its patentability; and
(ix) claim 26, as Appellants do not provide separate arguments for its
patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14, 21—24, and
26.
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
15