Samuel C. White et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 201914183423 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/183,423 02/18/2014 Samuel C. White P16233US1/77770000313101 1059 150004 7590 12/02/2019 DENTONS US LLP - Apple 4655 Executive Dr Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JR., WARREN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2019 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): dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com patents.us@dentons.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SAMUEL C. WHITE, DARREN C. MINIFIE, and CHRISTOPHER B. FLEIZACH ____________ Appeal 2018-000881 Application 14/183,423 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 An oral hearing scheduled on September 17, 2019, for this appeal has been waived. 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-000881 Application 14/183,423 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “electronic devices with touch- sensitive surfaces, and haptic displays or haptic feedback devices, . . . that generate haptic feedback for user interface elements” by outputting a Braille character. See Spec. ¶¶ 2, 9. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. An electronic device in communication with a haptic display that includes a touch-sensitive surface, comprising: one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: sending instructions to the haptic display to display at least a portion of a document that includes a plurality of characters, wherein a respective character is displayed at a respective displayed character size on the haptic display; while the haptic display is displaying at least the portion of the document, receiving an input that corresponds to a finger contact at a first location on the haptic display; and, in response to receiving the input that corresponds to the finger contact at the first location on the haptic display: associating a first cursor position with the first location on the haptic display; determining a first character in the plurality of characters adjacent to the first cursor position; and Appeal 2018-000881 Application 14/183,423 3 sending instructions to the haptic display to output a Braille character, at the first location on the haptic display, that corresponds to the first character, wherein a respective Braille character is output on the haptic display at a respective Braille character size, the respective Braille character size being larger than the corresponding displayed character size. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1–6, 8–14, 16–22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (A User Interface for the Visual-Impairment, Displays 25 (2004), pp. 151–157, available at www.sciencedirect.com) (herein after Huang) and King (US 2013/0044100 A1; pub. Feb. 21, 2013). Final Act. 2–10. Claims 7, 15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang, King, and Dagar (US 2012/0299853 A1; pub. Nov. 29, 2012). Final Act. 11–12. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Huang discloses all the recited elements of the claim including the processor, memory, and instructions for displaying a document on a haptic display and displaying a Braille character on the haptic display in response to receiving an input corresponding to a finger contact. Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner further relies on King as disclosing “that the visual display and haptic display is on a single device.” Final Act. 5 (citing King ¶¶ 18, 19). According to Appellant, the claimed invention requires “translation of a non-Braille character into Braille and the display of a Braille character at a size that is larger than the visually displayed character that it corresponds Appeal 2018-000881 Application 14/183,423 4 to.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is in error because Huang “discloses a system for translating Chinese characters into their Braille equivalent” wherein “‘two or three Braille cells’ may be used to present one Chinese character” and fails to disclose the above-mentioned feature of claim 1. Appeal Br. 14 (citing Huang p. 154). More specifically, Appellant asserts: To form the rejection, the Examiner relies on the number of Braille cells for each of the Chinese character to supply the claim element “a respective Braille character is output on the haptic display at a respective Braille character size, the respective Braille character size being larger than the corresponding displayed character size.” The Examiner specifically states that, “the size of each Chinese Braille code is not constant it uses two or three Braille cells to present a single Chinese character; so the Braille representation would be larger than the corresponding displayed character size.” However, the Examiner does not provide any supporting evidence to illustrate that there is a link between the Braille’s cell size and the corresponding displayed Chinese character size. Appeal Br. 14–15 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, “[e]ven though Huang discloses two or three Braille cells for a corresponding Chinese character, there is no disclosure as to the relative size of the Braille cells in comparison to the corresponding displayed character size” considering the fact that “Huang draws no connection between the displayed character size and the outputted Braille size — the sizes are completely independent.” Appeal Br. 15. Referring to Figure 4 of Huang, Appellant argues Huang provides no information related to the size of the characters. Appeal Br. 16.3 3 We do not address Appellant’s other contentions because our decision on this issue is dispositive of the appeal. Appeal 2018-000881 Application 14/183,423 5 In response, the Examiner finds that the disputed limitation is not recited in the claim and explains: There is no requirement in the claims for a link between the Braille character size and the corresponding displayed character size. For example, the claims do not include a limitation that the size of the displayed character is used in determining the size of the Braille character. Thus, the claims merely require that the Braille character is larger than the displayed character without establishing a way to determine a corresponding Braille character size to a displayed character size. Ans. 15. The Examiner further finds Figure 4 of Huang shows the Braille text lines with the corresponding text lines for the character having similar heights, which further suggests “the Chinese Braille character representation would be larger in length than the displayed Chinese character representation.” Ans. 16. Additionally, the Examiner finds “even if Huang did not disclose that the outputted Braille characters are larger than the corresponding displayed characters it would have been obvious to try such a modification.” Ans. 17. Based on a review of Huang, we are persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the Examiner has not explained how displaying the Braille text lines associated with the Chinese characters teaches the recited “wherein a respective Braille character is output on the haptic display at a respective Braille character size, the respective Braille character size being larger than the corresponding displayed character size.” See Appeal Br. 26 (Claim App.). In other words, although Huang displays two or three Braille characters to translate one Chinese character, Huang includes no disclosure related to the relative size of the Braille character with respect to the displayed Chinese character. See also Reply Br. 4. As further pointed out by Appellant: Appeal 2018-000881 Application 14/183,423 6 The Examiner is correct in that Huang discloses that the Braille Output Buffer area is composed of 3 by 40 Braille cells, but that only means that the Braille cells themselves are fixed in size. There is no indication or suggestion in Huang as to the size of the characters displayed on the computer screen. Thus, the Examiner is not relying on what Huang suggests, but rather the Examiner’s own best guess or mere speculation as to what Huang’s Figure 4 represents. Relying on guesses and speculation is not proper in an obviousness analysis. Reply Br. 6. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s position with respect to the rejections of independent claim 1 and independent claims 9 and 17, which recite similar limitations. The Examiner has not identified any teachings in the other applied prior art that would make up for the above-mentioned deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17, as well as claims 2–8, 10–16, and 18–24 dependent therefrom. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 8–14, 16–22, 24 § 103 Huang, King 1–6, 8–14, 16–22, 24 7, 15, 23 § 103 Huang, King, Dagar 7, 15, 23 Overall Outcome 1–24 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation