Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14160276 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/160,276 0112112014
69316 7590 07/03/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dan Hwang
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.
340342-US-NP 8236
EXAMINER
LHYMN, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAN HWANG, MUHAMMAD USMAN,
SCOTT GREENLA Y, and MOSHE SAPIR 1
Appeal2018-001003
Application 14/160,27 6
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-12, and 14--24. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The applicant was Microsoft Corporation, which assigned the patent
application to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. See Patent
Assignments Reel 039025, Frames 0454, 0517 (executed Oct. 14, 2014;
recorded Jan. 9, 2015). Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, is identified
in the Appeal Brief as the only real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001003
Application 14/160,27 6
Invention
The Specification discloses a method to detect how a portable device
is gripped and, based on the grip detection, desensitizing a portion of an
input interface. Abstract.
Representative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method, comprising:
identifying a non-empty set of points where an apparatus is being
gripped, the apparatus being a portable device configured with a touch
and hover-sensitive display;
determining a grip context based on the non-empty set of points;
characterizing an action to produce a characterization data set that
describes a duration of the action, a location of the action, a pressure
of the action, and a direction of the action;
detecting a gesture that begins in an area associated with the touch and
hover-sensitive display, that continues to a touch-sensitive edge
interface, and that returns to the touch and hover-sensitive display,
where the touch-sensitive edge interface is not part of the touch and
hover-sensitive display;
deactivating an input in response to a determination a determined
grip context indicates the input is inaccessible to a user maintaining
the determined grip context;
controlling operation of the apparatus based, at least in part, on the
grip context, the characterization data set, and the gesture;
where controlling operation of the apparatus based, at least in part, on
the grip context, includes moving functionality associated with a user
interface element displayed on the touch and hover-sensitive display
to one or more of a plurality of touch sensors not located in the touch
and hover-sensitive display, and where a subset of the plurality of
touch sensors switch to active from an inactive state to correspond to
the non-empty set of points where an apparatus is being gripped;
where the non-empty set of points are identified from first
information provided by the touch and hover-sensitive display
and from second information provided by the plurality of touch
2
Appeal2018-001003
Application 14/160,27 6
sensors, where the plurality of touch sensors are located on a
front, side, and back of the apparatus; and
where the first information includes a combination of a touch
location, a touch duration, a touch pressure, and a hover location.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 9-11, 14, and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr et al. (US 2006/0197750
Al; published Sept. 7, 2006) ("Kerr"), Dodge et al. (US 2007/0198950 Al;
published Aug. 23, 2007) ("Dodge"), King et al. (US 2012/0050211 Al;
published Mar. 1, 2012) ("King"), and VanBlon et al. (US 2014/0340320
Al; published Nov. 20, 2014) ("VanBlon"). Final Act. 3-15, 19-24.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kerr, Dodge, King, VanBlon, and Obeidat et al.
(US 2013/0265276 Al; published Oct. 10, 2013) ("Obeidat"). Final Act. 16,
33--42.
The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kerr, Dodge, King, VanBlon, and Small (US 2015/
0002406 Al; published Jan. 1, 2015) ("Small"). Final Act. 17-18.
The Examiner rejects claim 21under35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kerr, Doge, King, VanBlon, and Hotelling et al. (US
2006/0161870 Al; published July 20, 2006) ("Hotelling"). Final Act. 43.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
3
Appeal2018-001003
Application 14/160,27 6
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 8-12, 14--21, 23, AND 24
Findings and Contentions
VanBlon discloses a method of temporarily disabling touch input of a
device using a combination of touch inputs, accelerometer inputs, gyroscope
inputs, and proximity inputs to determine, for example, if the device is being
held like a book. VanBlon i-fi-125-27. The Examiner finds that, by disabling
touch input in response to determination of how the device is being held,
VanBlon teaches or suggests "deactivating an input in response to a
determination a determined grip context indicates the input is inaccessible to
a user maintaining the determined grip context," as recited in claim 1. Final
Act. 7 (citing VanBlon i-fi-125-34). The Examiner finds that VanBlon's input
deactivation is similar to the claimed input deactivation, particularly in light
of the Specification's disclosed use of a user's thumb position as the basis
for deactivating a button. Ans. 5 (citing Spec. i1 49). Specifically, the
Examiner finds VanBlon's deactivation of a lower edge of a touch input
surface of a device being carried around like a book, with the user's hand or
fingers wrapped around the lower edge of the device, teaches or suggests
deactivating an input in a similar context to that disclosed in the
Specification. Ans. 6 (citing VanBlon i1 31 ).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because instead of
deactivating an input in response to a determined grip context indicating "the
input is inaccessible" (claim 1, emphasis added), "VanBlon makes clear that
it relates to combating 'inadvertent touch input to the touch input surface
[that] can occur when carrying the device'" (App. Br. 12 (citing VanBlon
4
Appeal2018-001003
Application 14/160,27 6
i-f 24; bracketed text in Appeal Brief)). Appellant argues that "an area that is
likely to be touched inadvertently is quite the opposite of an area such as the
recited 'input' that is 'inaccessible."' Reply Br. 2.
Analysis
We agree with the Examiner that VanBlon teaches or suggests the
disputed recitation. As Appellant acknowledges, the claimed "determination
[that] a determined grip context indicates the input is inaccessible" is
disclosed as button 1150 being "deactivated based on the position of thumb
1192 [making it] difficult, if even possible at all, for a user to maintain their
grip on apparatus 1199 and touch button 1150 with thumb 1192." Spec.
i-f 49; see also App. Br. 3, 11; Reply Br. 2. The grip context leading to this
determination is illustrated in the Specification's Figure 12, reproduced
below:
5
Appeal2018-001003
Application 14/160,27 6
!
I
f
I 11~ I
/
1150
I
i
\."7·~-·
/''
1194
)
\
Hover Sensitive l/O Interface
1ID.Q l l 1180
1130 I
' . ,r· ---l\
~~---··--/ .1 \
! I l J 1
~----\ ! ! ~
~\
j l \
1192
~~r--·-----... J I
1190
I
--------1
U70
The Specification's Figure 12 illustrates an apparatus after a grip
detection has occurred, with thumb 1192 proximal to button 1150, located
on the right side, and the user's palm 1190 detected in the lower right hand
comer. Spec. i-fi-1 46, 49. The Specification characterizes this grip context as
one in which "apparatus 1199 is held in the right hand in the portrait
orientation." Spec. i1 49.
With this disclosed grip context-in which an input (i.e., button 1150)
is inaccessible to a user maintaining the grip context-any contact with
6
Appeal2018-001003
Application 14/160,27 6
button 1150 when held in this manner could come: (1) from the user
awkwardly using his or her left hand to reach over and interact with the
button; (2) from the user awkwardly arching a digit on his or her right hand
to interact with the button; or (3) from the user inadvertently contacting the
button with his or her right thumb, or another digit, due to the proximity of
the user's thumb and nearby digits to the button rather than due to the user
attempting to access or deliberately use the button. In other words, although
it is possible for the user to interact with button 1150 when holding the
device in the disclosed manner, such an interaction would be difficult and
may not represent the user attempting to access the button. See also Spec.
i-fi-1 2 ("Users are also familiar with the frustration of not being able to operate
their smart phone with one hand and with inadvertent touch events being
generated by, for example, the palm of their hand while the user moves their
thumb over the input/output interface.") (emphasis added), 43, 47
(explaining how de-sensitizing regions can help avoid "inadvertent
touches"). Such difficulty in accessing or deliberately using button 1150 is
what makes button 1150 "inaccessible." See also Spec. i-fi-1 49 (discussing to
"disable button 1150" when "[i]t may [be] difficult, if even possible at all,
for a user to maintain their grip on apparatus 1199 and touch button 1150
with thumb 1192" (emphasis added)), 43 (discussing to "increase the
sensitivity of regions most readily accessible to thumbs 930 and 940" and to
"de-sensitize ... regions associated with palms 920 and 950" to avoid
"inadvertent touches" (emphasis added)).
We agree with the Examiner that VanBlon's disclosed deactivation of
a lower edge of a touch input surface of a device being held like a book is
similar to the Specification's disclosed grip context warranting deactivation
7
Appeal2018-001003
Application 14/160,27 6
of button 1150. See Ans. 6 (citing VanBlon i-f 31). The user's hand or
fingers wrap around the lower edge of the device in the example provided by
VanBlon. VanBlon i-f 31. This could result in an "inadvertent touch input to
the touch input surface." Id. i-f 24. However, in this example, an inadvertent
touch would not be the same as the user accessing the touch input surface.
Without repositioning the device into a different grip context, the user in
VanBlon would find it difficult, if not impossible, to access or deliberately
use the touch input surface. See Spec. i-f 49; App. Br. 3 (citing Spec. i-f 49 for
support of the "inaccessible" limitation). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that VanBlon's determination that the device is being held like a
book teaches or suggests a determination of a grip context that indicates the
input is inaccessible to a user maintaining the determined grip context (i.e.,
where the input is unlikely to be from an attempt by the user to access the
input). See Ans. 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 2, 8-12,
14--21, 23, and 24, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar
reasons. App. Br. 15-21.
CLAIM22
Findings and Contentions
In rejecting claim 22 as obvious, the Examiner finds King's
calibration of a device when docked-where no touch or hover input is
expected-renders obvious modifying the combined teachings and
suggestions of Kerr, Dodge, King, and VanBlon to further include
"deactivating a plurality of buttons of the apparatus in response to a
8
Appeal2018-001003
Application 14/160,27 6
detection that the apparatus is resting on a surface." Final Act. 14 (citing
King ifif 105, 108-10).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because King's descriptions
"about a device being stationary are based solely on movement detections,
rather than a determination that the device is 'on a surface."' App. Br. 14
(citing King iii! 105, 110). Appellant argues a "device that is merely
stationary or resting may not be a 'device ... resting on a surface' as a
device may be held by a user in their hand without other movement but not
be resting on a surface." App. Br. 14.
Analysis
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because King explicitly
teaches or suggests performing calibration "[ w ]hen the device 2500 is
docked." King if 105. King illustrates device 2500 docked into docking
station 2535. Id. at Fig. 25. Thus, rather than being held by a user's hand,
King discloses a device resting on the surface formed by a docking station.
Thus, in its normal usage as shown in Figure 25, detecting the device 2500 is
docked teaches or suggests detecting that the device 2500 is resting on the
docking station surface.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 22.
9
Appeal2018-001003
Application 14/160,27 6
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 8-12, and
14--24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
10