Chemtron Research LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2021

2020003517 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2021)

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.
15/209,188 07/13/2016 Lester F. Ludwig 156612 1133
52531 7590 09/14/2021
COJK
1201 THIRD AVENUE
SUITE 3600
SEATTLE, WA 98101-3029
EXAMINER
AMADIZ, RODNEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2021 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):
efiling@cojk.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LESTER F. LUDWIG
____________

Appeal 2020-003517
Application 15/209,188
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 39–63. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Chemtron
Research LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003517
Application 15/209,188

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention extends functionality of user interface devices
used with a computer, such as computer mice, trackballs, and touchpads, by
providing additional simultaneously adjustable user interface parameters via
respective sensors. See Abstract; Spec. 4–5. Claim 39 is illustrative:
39. A powered user interface device for
controlling an application running on an external
computing device, the powered user interface device
comprising:
a housing configured to be movable on a surface;
a rechargeable battery contained within the housing;

a first sensor configured to detect a position change
of the housing on the surface and provide position signals
to indicate the position change of the housing on the surface;
and

a touch sensor carried by the housing, wherein the
touch sensor is configured to detect at least two points of
contact of at least two contacting fingers on a surface of the
powered user interface device and provide touch signals
responsive to the at least two contacting fingers on the surface
of the powered user interface device, wherein the touch
signals provide functionality for interacting with an
application running on the external computing device; and

a pressure sensor array configured to detect downward
pressure applied to the surface of the powered user interface
device as a widely varying user interface parameter to
control zoom functionality of the application running on the
external computing device and as click events associated
with detected downward pressure, and to cause the powered
user interface device to generate audible output associated
with the click events in response to detection of the downward
pressure by the pressure sensor array,
Appeal 2020-003517
Application 15/209,188

3
wherein the powered user interface device is
configured to communicate with the external computing
device via wireless communication.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 39–43 and 49–53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Shaw (US 6,587,093 B1; issued July 1, 2003),
Gillespie (US 5,880,411; issued Mar. 9, 1999), Kaemmler (US
2004/0119693 Al; published June 24, 2004), Capps (US 6,803,905 B1;
issued Oct. 12, 2004), and Kung (US 2002/0180763 A1; published Dec. 5,
2002). Final Act. 6–14.2
The Examiner rejected claims 44–48 and 54–58 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Shaw, Gillespie, Kaemmler, and Kung. Final
Act. 14–23.
The Examiner rejected claims 59–63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shaw, Gillespie, Nakamura (US 2002/0061739 A1;
published May 23, 2002), Capps, and Kung. Final Act. 23–27.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SHAW, GILLESPIE,
KAEMMLER, CAPPS, AND KUNG
Regarding independent claim 39, the Examiner finds that Shaw
discloses a powered user interface device with the recited first and touch
sensors, where the device is configured to communicate with an external
computing device. Final Act. 6–7. Although the Examiner acknowledges
that Shaw lacks a pressure sensor array configured to detect downward

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed June
24, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed January 8, 2020 (“Appeal
Br.”); and (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 6, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-003517
Application 15/209,188

4
pressure applied to the device’s surface and associated click events, the
Examiner cites Gillespie for teaching this feature. Final Act. 7–8. The
Examiner also acknowledges that the Shaw/Gillespie device lacks a
rechargeable battery within the housing and does not communicate with an
external computer device via wireless communication, but cites Kaemmler
for teaching these features. Final Act. 8.
The Examiner also acknowledges that the downward pressure
detected in Shaw/Gillespie/Kaemmler device is not used to (1) control zoom
functionality of an application running on the external computing device,
and (2) cause the user interface device to generate audible output associated
with the associated click events, but cites Kung and Capps for teaching
features (1) and (2), respectively. Final Act. 8–10.
Given these collective teachings, the Examiner concludes that the
claim would have been obvious. See Final Act. 6–10.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to incorporate Kung’s
touch screen zoom control functionality into Shaw’s device as the Examiner
proposes. Appeal Br. 10–15. According to Appellant, because Kung’s
zoom control functionality is used solely for, and integrated within, a touch
screen, there is no reason to modify Kung for use in anything other than a
touch screen. Appeal Br. 13–14. Appellant adds that even if were possible
to incorporate Kung’s functionality into the modified Shaw device as the
Examiner proposes, doing so would involve greater engineering effort with
no apparent benefit and, in fact, would deprive the user of the benefit of
Kung’s device, namely applying pressure to the part of the screen that the
user wants to zoom. Appeal Br. 14.
Appeal 2020-003517
Application 15/209,188

5
Appellant also argues that Capps does not cause a powered user
interface to generate audible output associated with click events responsive
to detecting downward pressure as claimed. Appeal Br. 15–17. According
to Appellant, Capps’ auditory feedback merely confirms a touch operation
on a touch screen, and does not detect downward pressure. Appeal Br. 16–
17.

ISSUES
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 39 by
finding that Shaw, Gillespie, Kaemmler, Capps, and Kung collectively
would have taught or suggested a powered user interface device with a
pressure sensor array configured to detect downward pressure applied to the
device’s surface to (1) control zoom functionality of an application running
on an external computing device that communicates with the user interface
device, and (2) cause the user interface device to generate audible output
associated with the associated click events responsive to the detected
pressure?
II. Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on Gillespie and
Kaemmler for teaching the various recited elements for which those
references were cited is undisputed. Rather, as noted above, this dispute
turns solely on the Examiner’s reliance on (1) the Examiner’s proposed
Appeal 2020-003517
Application 15/209,188

6
modification to the modified Shaw device in view of Kung, and (2) Capps
for teaching generating the recited audible output responsive to detected
downward pressure. Therefore, we confine our discussion to these issues.
As noted above, the Examiner acknowledges that downward pressure
detected in the modified Shaw device is not used to control zoom
functionality of an application running on an external computing device, but
cites Kung for teaching this feature. Final Act. 9–10. Despite Appellant’s
arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 10–15), we see no error in the
Examiner’s reliance on Kung in this regard in connection with the proposed
combination.
As explained in the Abstract, Kung’s touch screen uses pressure to
control zoom ratio and area. To this end, pressure exerted on a touch sensor
is interpreted by a display control to change the zoom area and ratio of an
image on a display panel. Kung Abstract. As shown in Kung’s Figures 2
and 3, pressure detector 108 is electrically connected to the touch screen’s
sensing plate 102 that is fixed on display panel 104.
Given this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner’s proposal to
provide a pressure-responsive zoom control, such as that in Kung, in
connection with the Shaw/Gillespie device that detects downward pressure
applied to the user interface device’s surface to control an application
running on an external computing device, including associated display
functionality. See Final Act. 6–9; Ans. 3–5 (citing Shaw col. 12, ll. 21–22
(noting that Gillespie’s methods are used in Shaw’s preferred embodiment);
Fig. 14); see also Gillespie, Abstract (noting that various gestures, including
tapping, drags, and pushes, are recognized by analyzing the position,
Appeal 2020-003517
Application 15/209,188

7
pressure, and movement of a conductive object on a sensor pad when a
suspected gesture occurs).
That Kung’s pressure-responsive zoom control is used in a touch
screen does not change our conclusion. Notably, the Examiner does not
propose to replace Shaw’s touch sensor with Kung’s touch screen, but rather
merely proposes to add pressure-responsive zoom control functionality, such
as that in Kung, to the modified Shaw device (Ans. 4)—a device that also
detects applied downward pressure, particularly when considered in light of
Gillespie as noted above. In short, the Examiner’s proposed enhancement to
the modified Shaw device would allow a user to control zooming by merely
varying pressure applied to the touch sensor—a useful adjunct yielding a
predictable result. Such an enhancement uses prior art elements predictably
according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that
providing pressure-responsive zoom control functionality, such as that in
Kung, to the modified Shaw device would involve “considerably greater
engineering effort” as Appellant contends. See Appeal Br. 14. Leaving
aside the fact that Appellant’s assertion in this regard is speculative and
unsubstantiated, to the extent that “considerably greater engineering effort”
would be required to provide pressure-responsive zoom control functionality
in the modified Shaw device as the Examiner proposes, any disadvantages
resulting from that increased effort would be offset by the advantages
provided by the enhancement, including allowing a user to control zooming
by varying pressure applied to the touch sensor. In short, such
Appeal 2020-003517
Application 15/209,188

8
considerations amount to an engineering trade-off well within the level of
ordinarily skilled artisans.
Furthermore, to the extent Appellant’s arguments are premised on the
alleged impropriety of bodily incorporating Kung’s zoom control
functionality into the modified Shaw device (see Appeal Br. 13–14), such
arguments are unavailing. It is well settled that “a determination of
obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an
actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness
whether a secondary reference’s features can be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. And here, the
Examiner’s proposed combination predictably uses prior art elements
according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Nor do we find persuasive Appellant’s contention that the Examiner’s
proposal to transfer Kung’s zoom control functionality to a modified Shaw
device would deprive the user of its benefits, and there is no motivation
apparent in the references or in the Examiner’s reasoning to overcome this
drawback. Appeal Br. 14. Our emphasis underscores that the motivation to
combine references need not be found in the references sought to be
combined as Appellant seemingly suggests, “but may be found in any
number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole,
or the nature of the problem itself.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. v.
C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2020-003517
Application 15/209,188

9
Therefore, to the extent Appellant’s argument is premised on the notion that
the Examiner’s rationale to combine the cited references must be articulated
within those references (see Appeal Br. 14), we disagree.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on Capps for at least
suggesting causing a powered user interface device to generate audible
output associated with click events responsive to detecting downward
pressure as claimed. See Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 5–6.
As Capps explains, users are typically given visual and/or auditory
feedback, usually a “beep,” when confirming or verifying a touch operation
when pressing touch points or elements on a touch screen. Capps col. 1, ll.
18–22. Our emphasis underscores that this auditory feedback occurs when
the user presses certain elements on the user interface—a detected pressing
action that at least suggests applied downward pressure, particularly in light
of the Examiner’s cited dictionary definitions of “pressing” and “press.” See
Ans. 6. Given Capps’ functionality in light of these authorities, Appellant’s
contention that Capps’ auditory feedback merely confirms a touch operation
on a touch screen, and purportedly does not detect downward pressure
(Appeal Br. 16–17), is unavailing. On this record, the Examiner’s proposed
enhancement to the modified Shaw device in light of Capps uses prior art
elements predictably according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement.3 See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

3 Although the Examiner refers to four other references in connection with
pressure sensor arrays with audible feedback (Ans. 6), our decision is based
solely on the references cited in the rejection from which this appeal was
taken. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a
reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a ‘minor
Appeal 2020-003517
Application 15/209,188

10
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 39, and claims 40–43 and 49–53 not argued separately with
particularity.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 44–
48 and 54–63. Final Act. 14–27. Despite nominally arguing claims 44, 54,
and 59 separately, Appellants reiterate arguments similar to those made in
connection with claim 39. See Appeal Br. 18–24. We are not persuaded by
these arguments for the reasons previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)
/Basis
Affirmed Reversed
39–43,
49–53
103 Shaw,
Gillespie,
Kaemmler,
Capps, Kung
39–43, 49–
53

44–48,
54–58
103 Shaw,
Gillespie,
Kaemmler,
Kung
44–48, 54–
58

59–63 103 Shaw,
Gillespie,
Nakamura,
Capps, Kung
59–63
Overall
Outcome
39–63

capacity,’ there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including
that reference in the statement of the rejection.”).
Appeal 2020-003517
Application 15/209,188

11

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).

AFFIRMED