Ex Parte Avison-Fell et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2019

13764554 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/764,554 02/11/2013 Craig Avison-Fell
100597 7590 04/24/2019
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP (DISH)
DISH Network L.L.C.
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
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.
P2012-09-09 (0851730) 2741
EXAMINER
LEE,ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2019 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG AVISON-FELL, DAVID HARRIS, and MARK NOLAN 1
Appeal2018-006726
Application 13/764,554
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 4 through 11, 13, 16 through 18, 20
through 23, and 27 through 29, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Claims 2, 3, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 24 through 26 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Echostar
Technologies, L.L.C. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006726
Application 13/764,554
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for changing the mode of an
interface input such that a user can use the pointing device to create a
multi-touch input or gesture. Spec. paras. 1-5.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
A method for controlling display of an on-screen image
using a simulated multi-touch input, comprising:
detecting a first discrete action corresponding to a first
actuation of a pointing device;
determining a first time and a first position, on a
two-dimensional display interface, associated with the first
discrete pointing device actuation;
detecting a second discrete action corresponding to a
second actuation of the pointing device;
determining a second time and a second position, on the
two-dimensional display interface, associated with the second
discrete pointing device actuation;
determining a direction of motion within the
two-dimensional display interface from the first discrete
pointing device actuation to the second discrete pointing device
actuation, based on the first position on the two-dimensional
display interface associated with the first discrete pointing
device actuation and the second position on the
two-dimensional display interface associated with the second
discrete pointing device actuation;
determining a particular type of multi-touch input,
based on the determined direction of motion within the
two-dimensional display interface from the first discrete
pointing device actuation to the second discrete pointing device
actuation, using a predetermined mapping of a plurality of
directions of motion within the two-dimensional display
interface to a corresponding plurality of multi-touch input
types; and
controlling display of an on-screen image in accordance
with the particular multi-touch input.
App. Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-006726
Application 13/764,554
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4 through 7, 13, 16 through 18,
27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Yasutake
(US 2012/0320198 Al; pub 1. Dec. 20, 2012), Han (US 2011/0071789 Al;
publ. Mar. 24, 2011) (herein after Han'789), and De Foras (US
2014/0092011 Al; publ. Apr. 3, 2014). Final Act. 2-14.
The Examiner has rejected claims 21, 22, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Yasutake, Han'789, De Foras, and
Sakakibara (US 2013/0141429 Al; publ. June 6, 2013). Final Act. 14--17.
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 through 11 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Yasutake, Han (US
2010/0238137 Al; publ. Sept. 23, 2010) (herein after Han'I37), and De
Foras. Final Act. 17-23.
The Examiner has rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Yasutake, Han'789, De Foras, and Kerr (US
2009/0066647 Al; publ. Mar. 12, 2009). Final Act. 23-24. 3
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
December 1, 2017, the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 5, 2018, the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed June 2, 201 7, and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 3, 2018.
3 We note the Examiner's statement of the rejection does not include De
Foras, however, as claim 23 depends upon claim 1 and the Examiner has
incorporated the rationale in rejecting claim 1 into the rejection of claim 23,
we consider this to be an inadvertent oversight.
3
Appeal2018-006726
Application 13/764,554
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejections.
With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 13 Appellants argue that
the Examiner's rejections of these claims is in error as the combination of
the references does not teach determining a particular type of multi-touch
input, based on the direction of motion of the pointing device within the two
dimensional interface using a predetermining mapping of a plurality of
multi-touch input types to a corresponding plurality of directions of motion.
App. Br. 7-11, Reply Br. 4--6. Appellants' arguments focus on the teachings
of De F oras, which the Examiner relies upon to teach this feature.
The Examiner responds to Appellants' arguments stating:
De Foras in general teaches gestures performed with a remote
control with respect to a display (i1 [0002, 0074-0076], See
Figure 4a). De Foras discloses converting a three-dimensional
gesture performed by a user to a two-dimensional input on the
screen (i1 [0028-0030, 0048], See Figure 1 ). In addition, De
Foras teaches determining a gesture by"[ comparing] the
recorded gesture with the gesture library" (i1 [0049]). Figure 3b
of De Foras discloses swiping left, right, up and down.
Answer 3.
Initially, we note that independent claims 1 and 13 are rejected based
upon Yasutake, Han'789, and De Foras, and independent claim 8 is rejected
based upon Yasutake, Han' 137, and De Foras, however, both rejections rely
upon De Foras to teach the disputed limitation. Each of independent claims
1, 8, and 13 recites detecting an action ( or signal) of a pointing device
associated with an actuation, determining a position on a two dimensional
4
Appeal2018-006726
Application 13/764,554
display associated with the actuation, determining a direction of motion
within the two dimensional display interface, and determining a type of
multi-touch input based upon the determined direction of motion. We have
reviewed the cited teachings of De F oras and we concur with the Examiner
that De Foras monitors motion of an input device and determines a gesture.
We disagree with the Examiner, however, that this teaches the claimed
system as we do not find De F oras determines direction of motion within the
two-dimensional display interface. De Foras, teaches that when the input
device is in the gesture mode, the cursor on the two dimensional display is
frozen and does not move. See, e.g., para. 10 ("During the gesture
recognition mode, the cursor is frozen on the screen because the user's
motion should preferably not impart motion to the cursor during gesture
recognition, and in order not to limit the gesture of the user to a 2D gesture."
See also paras. 48, 49, 76, 79). Thus, there is no motion of the cursor on the
display to measure and map to the multi-touch input. The Examiner has not
shown that the additional references cited in the rejections teach using the
direction of motion within the two-dimensional display to determine the
multi-touch input. Accordingly, we do not find that the Examiner has shown
that the combination of the references teach the limitations of independent
claims 1, 8, and 13.
The Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 4 through 7, 9 through
11, 16 through 18, 20 through 23, and 27 through 29 similarly rely upon De
Foras to teach the disputed limitations of claims 1, 8, and 13 and the
Examiner has not shown that the additional references relied upon teach the
disputed limitations. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of these claims for the same reasons as claims 1, 8, and 13.
5
Appeal2018-006726
Application 13/764,554
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4 through
11, 13, 16 through 18, 20 through 23, and 27 through 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
6