Ex Parte Miyazaki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 21, 2016

12783311 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121783,311 05/19/2010
60803 7590
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
620 Herndon Parkway
Suite 320
Herndon, VA 20170
10/24/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Reiko MIYAZAKI
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.
1946-0141 6429
EXAMINER
MOORAD, W ASEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2016 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 REIKO MIYAZAKI
Appeal2015-005926
Application 12/783,311
Technology Center 3600
Before JON M. JURGOVAN, AMBER L. HAGY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005926
Application 12/783,311
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
"The present invention relates to an information processing apparatus,
an information processing method, and a program." (Spec. 1:6-7.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
an operation tool detection unit configured to detect at least
one of a contact operation by an operation tool on the information
processing apparatus and a proximity operation by the operation
tool on the information processing apparatus;
a state detection unit configured to detect at least one of a
static/non-static state of the information processing apparatus
and an orientation of the information processing apparatus,
wherein the static/non-static state of the information processing
apparatus is determined based on feedback from an acceleration
sensor that estimates the velocity of the operation tool, wherein
in the static state the information processing apparatus is able to
receive the proximity operation, and wherein in the non-static
state the information processing apparatus is unable to effec-
tively receive the proximity operation; and
a mode control unit for controlling a mode for detecting the
operation by the operation tool on the information processing ap-
paratus according to at least one of the detected static/non-static
1 Appellant identifies Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2015-005926
Application 12/783,311
state and the detected orientation of the information processing
apparatus.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTION
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kobayashi et al. (US 2004/0021645 Al; published Feb. 5, 2004) and
Jeng et al. (US 7,830,360 B2; issued Nov. 9, 2010). (See Final Act. 2-9.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the rejection is in error because "Kobayashi clearly
does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claim recitations that 'in the static
state the information processing apparatus is able to receive the proximity
operation, and wherein in the non-static state the information processing
apparatus is unable to effectively receive the proximity operation.'" (See
App. Br. 16.)
The Examiner responds as follows:
In the Kobayashi reference, as demonstrated through Figure 8,
sections 0116-0120 and 0165-0171, there are three different
states present: A pen input state, a proximity state, and a remote
state. It is understood from this reference that depending on the
Z-direction of the stylus, the system will be in any one of the
three aforementioned states. In other words, the stylus would
hypothetically be in either a pen input state, a proximity state, or
a remote state, but no more than one state at a particular time.
Therefore, if a stylus was in a pen input state, where the stylus is
making physical contact with the touch surface, there is no prox-
imity or remote operation occurring. Furthermore, proximity is
being defined by Kobayashi as having the Z-value between 0 and
1, such that anything greater than one would be in remote mode,
and thus the proximity input would not be detected. Therefore,
if a pen is in proximity mode, then it is being interpreted as being
in a static state, since proximity input operation is being
3
Appeal2015-005926
Application 12/783,311
detected, and if a pen is in either touch input mode or remote
mode, then it is not in static state, since proximity input operation
is not being detected.
(Ans. 10-11, emphasis added.)
We agree with the Examiner's findings that Kobayashi teaches or
suggests that "in the static state [i.e., the proximity mode] the information
processing apparatus is able to receive the proximity operation, and wherein
in the non-static state [i.e., the pen input mode] the information processing
apparatus is unable to effectively receive the proximity operation" and,
therefore, sustain the rejection.
Appellant's argument that "it is clearly disclosed in paragraph [0171]
that 'the cursor is moved' in both 'proximity input' mode and 'remote input'
mode" (Reply 7) is not persuasive of error because the Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Kobayashi's pen input state, in which proximity sensing is not
operative, may be the claimed "non-static state." Appellant does not address
that finding.
Additionally, although Appellant briefly cites in the Reply the claim
language "the static/non-static state of the information processing apparatus
is determined based on feedback from an acceleration sensor that estimates
the velocity of the operation tool," we find any argument based on that
passage waived by its omission from the Appeal Brief. See Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[T]he reply
brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made
in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were
not."); see 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
4
Appeal2015-005926
Application 12/783,311
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-15 are 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
5