Ex Parte Ozias et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 201612405700 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/405,700 03/17/2009 Orin M. Ozias 33438 7590 07/27/2016 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP P.O. BOX 203518 AUSTIN, TX 78720 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. DC-15352 4053 EXAMINER FRANK, EMILY J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2695 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2016 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): tmunoz@tcchlaw.com kchambers@tcchlaw.com heather@tcchlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ORIN M. OZIAS, HANS EILERS, and ERIN K. W ALLINE Appeal2015-001682 Application 12/405,700 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JON M. JURGOV AN, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, and 18. Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16 have been canceled. (Br. 6-8). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2015-001682 Application 12/405,700 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to changing to the content of a display screen in response to detecting an input gesture. (Spec. i-f 5). Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for generating a screen presentation content change on an information handling system comprising: generating a screen presentation; monitoring for a predefined input gesture, the monitoring comprising monitoring a touch sensitive input device, the predefined input gesture comprising at least one of a full palm gesture and a multifinger gesture; generating a screen presentation content change in response to detection of the predefined input gesture, the screen presentation content change comprising an innocuous screen presentation, the innocuous screen presentation corresponding to a desldop screen presentation. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zotov et al. (US 2007/0262964 Al; published Nov. 15, 2007) and Hu et al. (US 2010/0097322 Al; published Apr. 22, 2010). 2 Appeal2015-001682 Application 12/405,700 ANALYSIS 112 Rejections Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the recitation of an "innocuous" screen presentation renders the claims indefinite? The Examiner finds the term "innocuous," as used in independent claims 1, 7, and 13, is a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. (Final Act. 2; Ans. 5). Appellants provide a dictionary definition of "innocuous" meaning "not likely to give offence or to arouse strong feelings or hostility." (Br. 3). Accordingly, Appellants contend "an innocuous screen presentation is a screen presentation which is not likely to give offence or to arouse strong feelings or hostility." (Br. 3). Appellants also argue the claim language defines an "innocuous screen presentation" as "corresponding to a desktop screen presentation." (Br. 3). We agree with Appellants that the claim language adequately defines what is meant by the term "innocuous." A claim is indefinite if that claim, "read in light of the [S]pecification ... and the prosecution history, fail[ s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). We determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, based on the Specification and the claim language, that the claimed innocuous screen presentation corresponds to a desktop screen presentation. (See Spec. i-f 20, Fig. 6). Accordingly, we do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection. 3 Appeal2015-001682 Application 12/405,700 103 Rejections Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Zotov and Hu teaches or suggests "generating a screen presentation content change in response to detection of the predefined input gesture, the screen presentation content change comprising an innocuous screen presentation, the innocuous screen presentation corresponding to a desktop screen presentation" ("the disputed limitation") as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 7 and 13? The Examiner relies on Zotov to teach or suggest "generating a screen presentation content change in response to detection of the predefined input gesture, the screen presentation content change comprising an innocuous screen presentation" (Final Act. 3--4, citing Zotov Fig. 3, step 308) and Hu to teach or suggest the "innocuous screen presentation corresponding to a desktop screen presentation." (Final Act. 4, citing Hu i-f 4). Appellants argue "[ s ]tep 308 [of Zotov] describes performing a toggle accessibility aid operation," and "nowhere in this portion of Zotov (nor anywhere else in Zotov) is there any disclosure or suggestion of [the disputed limitation.]" (Br. 4). Appellants further argue "[t]his deficiency of Zotov is not cured by Hu." (Id.) We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the Examiner's findings. (See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 6-7). Zotov describes using preconfigured user inputs/gestures to correspond to a toggle accessibility aid operation. (Zotov i-f 38). The toggle accessibility aid operation results in toggling the visibility of a widget, such as a touch pointer, soft keyboard widget, screen reader, or magnifier, on the interactive display device. (Zotov i-f 27). We agree with the Examiner that such disclosure teaches or 4 Appeal2015-001682 Application 12/405,700 suggests "generating a screen presentation content change in response to detection of the predefined input gesture" as claimed. Moreover, Appellants' arguments simply attack Zotov in isolation, but do not substantively address the combined teachings and suggestions of Zotov and Hu as relied upon by the Examiner. Nonobviousness "cannot be established by attacking references individually" when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 13. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18, which were not argued separately. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 1 7, and 18 is reversed. For the above reasons, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, and 18 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation