Ex Parte Westerman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

13072623 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

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.
13/072,623 03/25/2011 Wayne Carl WESTERMAN 106842007302
(P5258USC2)
6379
69753 7590 09/27/2017
APPT F cln MORRTSON Rr FOFRSTFR T T P T A
EXAMINER
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
BOYD, JONATHAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
EOfficeL A @ mofo. com
PatentDocket @ mofo. com
pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE CARL WESTERMAN and JOSHUA A. STRICKON
Appeal 2016-005338
Application 13/072,623
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—16 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2—3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-005338
Application 13/072,623
Introduction
The invention is directed to “touch sensor panels used as input devices
for computing systems, and more particularly, to techniques for identifying
touch patches from images of touch and processing the identified touch
patches to obtain more accurate touch patches.” Specification, paragraph 2.
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for merging touch patches in an image of
touch generated on a touch sensor panel, comprising:
identifying a plurality of touch patches, each touch patch
comprising a plurality of touch pixels;
identifying a saddle point between two non-overlapping
touch patches, the saddle point having an associated touch
value; and
merging the two touch patches when:
the touch value of the saddle point is within a
predetermined magnitude of a peak touch value of at least one
of the two touch patches, and
a number of touch pixels in at least one of the two touch
patches is greater than a predetermined threshold.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bisset (US Patent 5,825,352; issued October 20, 1998),
Westerman (US Patent 6,323,846 Bl; issued November 27, 2001) and
Fujimoto (US Patent 6,061,177; issued May 9, 2000). Final Rejection 5—14.
ANALYSIS
3
Appeal 2016-005338
Application 13/072,623
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 18, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
April 19, 2016), the Final Rejection (mailed September 18, 2014) and the
Answer (mailed February 19, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellants contend the obviousness rejection of claims 1—16 is
erroneous because:
Fujimoto does not disclose or suggest a condition for merging
two touch patches that is satisfied when a number of touch
pixels in at least one of the two touch patches is greater than a
predetermined threshold. Indeed, Fujimoto merely discloses
eliminating touches that are greater than or less than a
predetermined size—eliminating is not merging. Further, in
rejecting the claims based on Fujimoto, the Examiner clearly
dissects the limitations of the claims with hindsight, which is
improper.
Appeal Brief 3^4; see also id. at 10-12.
Appellants contend:
Fujimoto is directed to a touch screen input device (see Abstract).
Fujimoto discloses performing certain image processing
functions on a touch image captured by the touch screen (see col.
10, lines 42-45). One of these functions is the elimination of
touches that are significantly larger or smaller than a
predetermined size, so that “touches from elbows, arms and other
objects left resting on the touch surface 1 are not recognized as
touches” (see col. 11, lines 7-13).
Appeal Brief 6.
The Examiner finds in the Final Rejection:
Bisset doesn’t expressly disclose “merging.”
However, Westerman suggests combining disparate
elements into a single entity (Figs. 13-16 and 18-19; lines 21-25
and 46-52 of col. 19); specifically, disparate touches are
combined into a single group. For example, disparate touches
201-209 (lines 28-64 of col. 18) are combined into single entities
4
Appeal 2016-005338
Application 13/072,623
such as a palm or a finger (Fig. 16, lines 14-65 of col. 19, Hand,
Finger and Palm Identification Steps 247, 248). Similarly,
Westerman teaches (Fig. 18, Step 268, lines 33-54 of col. 23;
Step 270; Step 272, line 65 of col. 25 to line 6 of col. 26; Fig. 19,
lines 33-54 of col. 23) combining disparate touches/pixels
(signified by black arrows in Fig. 19) into a single group (the
group defined by ellipse 274 in Fig. 19).
It would be obvious to those persons ordinarily skilled in
the art at the time of the invention to use Westerman’s idea of
combining in Bisset’s touch device, so a variety of hand
configurations “can be recognized and used to distinguish
different kinds of input activity” (Westerman background).
Bisset and Westerman combined teach a number of touch
pixels in at least one of the two touch patches (Bisset, Fig. 1-2,
lines 22-33 and 48-51 of col. 5) but not expressly being greater
than a predetermined threshold.
However in the same field of endeavor, Fujimoto teaches
eliminating “touches” larger than a predetermined size (Fig. 10,
Steps 49, 51, 53 and 57, lines 56-62 of col. 10, lines 7-13 of col.
11, where the predetermined size is taken as a number of pixels).
It would be obvious to skilled artisans at the time of the
invention to use Fujim[o]to’s idea of processing touches based
on a predetermined size in Bisset/Westerman’s touch device, so
that only touches within the desired size range are recognized as
touches (Fujimoto, lines 9-11 of col. 11).
Final Rejection 6—7 (underlines added; original emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue:
The Office Action dated September 18,2014, does not assert that
Bisset or Westerman disclose the above merging condition.
Rather, the Office Action asserts that Fujimoto’s teaching of
5
Appeal 2016-005338
Application 13/072,623
“eliminating ‘touches’ larger than a predetermined size” renders
the above merging condition obvious (see Office Action, page
7). The Office Action is wrong.
Appeal Brief 6.
Appellants’ arguments fail to address the Examiner’s findings that
Westerman discloses combining disparate touches into single entities. See
Final Rejection 6—7. Rather, Appellants’ arguments are directed to Fujimoto
alone. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because “[n]on-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). It is evident that the
Examiner relied upon the combination of Westerman and Fujimoto to
disclose the claimed merging touch patches. See Final Rejection 6—7.
Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 6 and 12 commensurate in scope, as well as,
dependent claims 2—5, 7—11 and 13—16 not separately argued. See Appeal
Brief 12.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—16 is affirmed.
6
Appeal 2016-005338
Application 13/072,623
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
7