Ex Parte Conzola et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2018

14161116 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/161,116 01122/2014
58127 7590 07/05/2018
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vincent Charles Conzola
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.
RPS920130189USNP(710.303) 9966
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, DENNIS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2018 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 VINCENT CHARLES CONZOLA, ALI KATHRYN ENT,
CUONG HUY TRUONG, and WESLEY ABRAM LUTTRELL
(Applicant: Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD.)
Appeal2017-008776
Application 14/161, 116 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD. as the Real Party in
Interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2017-008776
Application 14/161, 116
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to
deactivating touch sensitive surfaces of a display in response to user input.
(Abstract.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method, comprising:
activating, using a processor, a touch sensitive surface;
displaying an application on the touch sensitive surface;
accepting user inputs to the touch sensitive surface,
within the application, wherein the user inputs comprise text
input provided to the application;
receiving a designation of an active field within the
application;
thereafter detecting, using a processor, a deactivation
event derived from the application; and
deactivating, using a processor, a portion of the touch
sensitive surface such that the portion is unresponsive within
the application to touch input following detection of the
deactivation event;
wherein the deactivating deactivates one or more portions
of the touch sensitive surface for one or more users, wherein the
one or more portions comprises an input field of the application
other than the active field; and
wherein a portion of the touch sensitive surface
corresponding to the active field remains active and receives
user input for the application.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wang (US 2015/0084877 Al, pub. Mar. 26, 2015) and
Kim et al. (US 2014/0306905 Al, pub. Oct. 16, 2014). (Final Act. 3-19.)
2
Appeal2017-008776
Application 14/161, 116
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments present the following issues: 2
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Wang and Kim teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claims 1,
11, and 20. (App. Br. 10-12.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Wang and Kim teaches or suggests the additional limitation of claim 9.
(App. Br. 12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 3-19) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. (Ans. 3---6.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by
the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
Issue One
In finding that Wang and Kim teach or suggest the limitations of the
independent claims, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Wang of a
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 31, 2016) (herein, "App.
Br."); the Reply Brief (filed May 30, 2017) (herein, "Reply Br."); the Final
Office Action (mailed May 31, 2016) (herein, "Final Act."); and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Mar. 29, 2017) (herein, "Ans.") for the
respective details.
3
Appeal2017-008776
Application 14/161, 116
touch device for dynamically setting a touch inactive area based on data on
different users' holding habits, in order to avoid inadvertently activating an
application or inputting data from an unwanted touch. (Final Act. 3-5;
Wang Abstract, Figs. 4---6, i-fi-f 11, 32, 34.) The Examiner also relies on the
disclosure in Kim of adjusting the inactive area of a touch screen device
using finger gestures, in order to avoid inadvertent entry of unnecessary data
in an application. (Final Act. 5-6; Kim Abstract, Figs. lB, 6A---C, 13D,
14A---C, i-fi-f 16-17, 53, 72, 158, 162-163, 230, 236.)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because neither Wang nor Kim
teaches the required application input fields that accept text input, but rather
are directed generally to deactivating areas of the screen. (App. Br. 10-12.)
To the contrary, both references disclose avoiding unwanted input in an
application by deactivating portions of the area of the screen occupied by the
application. (Ans. 4---6; Wang i132; Kim Fig. 13D, i-fi-f 16-17, 158, 230.)
The Examiner finds, and we agree, this disclosure teaches or suggests the
limitations of the independent claims. (Final Act. 6; Ans. 6.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
claims 1, 11, and 2 0.
Issue Two
Dependent claim 9 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation,
"wherein the detecting comprises detecting assignments for two or more
users for different touch input areas of the touch sensitive surface." (App.
Br. 15.) In rejecting this claim, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in
Wang of dynamically configuring the inactive area of the screen based on
the holding habits of multiple users. (Final Act. 9; Wang i-f 11.) In
maintaining the Examiner errs, Appellants repeat the argument that the
4
Appeal2017-008776
Application 14/161, 116
references do not teach the required application input fields that accept text
input. (App. Br. 12.) This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons
discussed above.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 1, 9, 11, and 20 over Wang and Kim. We also sustain
the obviousness rejections of claims 2-8, 10, and 12-19 over Wang and
Kim, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5