Ex Parte Homma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2016

13474869 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)

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.
13/474,869 05/18/2012 Fuminori HOMMA 1946-0360 1023
60803 7590 11/23/2016
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
EXAMINER
MA, CALVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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 FUMINORI HOMMA, IKUO YAMANO,
SHUNICHI KASAHARA, and TATSUSHINASHIDA
Appeal 2015-007592
Application 13/474,869
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—10. See App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to processing an input to a graphical user
interface (GUI) “by estimating an operation input and performing, in the
Appeal 2015-007592
Application 13/474,869
background, preprocessing for a process that is to occur, [so that] a slight
delay until GUI feedback is provided can be prevented.” Spec. 116.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
an event processing unit configured to
perform in a background a predicted operation input
process based on a position of an operating tool in a
proximity state without notifying the performance of the
predicted operation input process to a user, and
perform, when the operating tool in the proximity
state enters a contact state, a feedback process that is
displayed to the user using the predicted operation input
process previously performed in the background if the
contact state was correctly predicted by the operation input
process.
References and Rejections
Claims 1—7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Duarte (US 2010/0169766 Al; July 1, 2010) and
Bridger (US 2009/0207144 Al; Aug. 20, 2009). Final Act. 2.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Duarte, Bridger, and Westerman (US 2010/0211920 Al;
Aug. 19, 2010). Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. Appellants do not separately argue claims 1—7, 9, and 10. See
App. Br. 16. We select claim 1 as representative of the group. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded of Examiner error, and
2
Appeal 2015-007592
Application 13/474,869
we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, adding the
following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 in view of
Duarte and Bridger, because Bridger “does not alleviate the admitted
deficiencies of Duarte for failing to teach or suggest to 4perform in a
background a predicted operation input process based on a position of an
operating tool in a proximity state without notifying the performance of the
predicted operation input process to a user'''’'’ as claimed. App. Br. 11.
Appellants particularly contend that, in Bridger, “there is absolutely no
teaching or suggestion of any kind of ‘predicted operation input’, ‘a
proximity state’, or the ‘without notifying’ claim recitations.” Id. at 16.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive of error because they attack
the references individually, and fail to address the Examiner’s findings.
“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the Examiner correctly finds Duarte teaches or suggests “an
event processing [apparatus] configured to perform in a background a
predicted operation input process based on a position of an operating tool in
a proximity state.” Final Act. 2, see also Duarte Figs. 2, 7, 8A— 8B; 134
(“the non-discrete input action may be analyzed to infer a directional intent
of a user.”). The Examiner further determines one of ordinary skill would
modify Duarte’s event processing apparatus with Bridger’s teaching of
performing operations without notifying a user. See Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 2—
5; see also Duarte 132—38 (describing cursor position calculations using
default cursor values that are not displayed), 131 (“[i]n multi-touch
3
Appeal 2015-007592
Application 13/474,869
scenarios where only one cursor is actually displayed, the other cursor offset
positions can be used for selecting or otherwise manipulating items at an
edge of the display 110 without displaying another cursor”).
We agree with the Examiner’s determination. In contrast, Appellants’
arguments consist of restatements of the claim language and quotes from the
cited references. See App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 4—5. Such a response to the
Examiner’s findings is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. See In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”);
cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is
not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than
argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior
art.”).
Additionally, in the Reply Brief, Appellants newly contend the
combination of Duarte and Bridger does not teach or suggest “when the
operating tool enters a contact state, perform a feedback process that is
displayed to the user using the predicted operation input process that was
previously performed in the background” as required by claim 1. Reply Br.
4. We do not consider this argument because it was not first raised in the
Appeal Brief. See Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A.,
469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for the first time in the
Reply Brief that could have been raised in the opening brief is waived); see
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
4
Appeal 2015-007592
Application 13/474,869
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Duarte and Bridger teaches or suggests the limitations of
claims 1—7, 9, and 10.1 Appellants argue Westerman does not remedy the
deficiencies of Duarte and Bridger in the rejection of dependent claim 8;
however, the Examiner relies on the findings in Duarte and Bridger
discussed above for the limitations inherited by dependent claim 8. See Ans.
6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 for the same
reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10 is affirmed.
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
1 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any
review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to determine if claim 1 is
structured as a single means claim and, therefore, not compliant with
35U.S.C. § 11211. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
5