Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

12867709 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/867,709 08/13/2010
22879 7590 12/30/2015
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Craig Thomas Brown
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.
82247591 1834
EXAMINER
HIGGS, STELLA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2015 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG THOMAS BROWN
Appeal 2014-001358
Application 12/867 ,709
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1, 4--7, 9, 12, 14, 17, and 19--28, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 18 are cancelled. (App. Br. (Claims
App'x) i.)
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Hewlett-Packard
Development Co. LP, which is related to Hewlett-Packard Co. and HPQ
Holdings, LLC. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-001358
Application 12/867,709
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to "detecting user input of a
symbol into a touch-sensitive input device of [a] computing device and,
responsive to that detection, launching a user application associated with the
symbol." (Abstract.) Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method for launching a user application on a
computing device, the method comprising:
detecting user input of a symbol into a touch-sensitive
display of the computing device;
determining the user application associated with the input
symbol; and
launching the user application and presenting a user
interface of the user application in the touch-sensitive display of
the computing device.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Wu us 5,016,849 May 21, 1991
Ilan et al TJS 6_668_081 Rl Dec_ 21 _ 2001 -- -,---,--- -- - - - - -- ' - - - -
("Ilan")
Kim US 7 ,004,394 B2 Feb.28,2006
I we ma et al. US 7,581,194 B2 Aug 25, 2009
("I wema")
Claims 1, 4--7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kim. (See Final Act. 2-6.)
Claims 1, 4--7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, and 26 stand rejected in the
alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim. (See Final
Act. 2---6.)
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kim and Ilan et al. ("Ilan"). (See Final Act. 6.)
2
Appeal2014-001358
Application 12/867,709
Claims 22, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim and Iwema et al. ("Iwema"). (See Final Act. 6-8.)
Claims 23 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim and Wu. (See Final Act. 8-9.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed June 5, 2013; "Reply Br." filed Nov. 5, 2013) and the
Specification ("Spec." filed Aug. 13, 2010) for the positions of Appellant
and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Jan. 18, 2013) and Answer
("Ans." mailed Sept. 5, 2013) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of
the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ISSUES
The issues presented by Appellant's contentions are as follows:
Does Kim disclose "detecting user input of a symbol into a touch-
sensitive display of the computing device ... and presenting a user interface
of the user application in the touch-sensitive display of the computing
device," as recited in claim 1? (Emphasis added).
Does the combination of Kim and Wu teach or suggest "the detected
user input is provided at the touch-sensitive display that is rotatably
connected to a base by a hinge mechanism, ... wherein a keyboard is
provided at [a] surface [of the base]," as recited in claim 23?
3
Appeal2014-001358
Application 12/867,709
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments and contentions (App. Br.
4--9; Reply Br. 1---6) in light of the Examiner's findings (Final Act. 3--4, 8-9)
and explanations (Ans. 9-15) regarding claims 1 and 23. We agree with the
Examiner's findings and explanations (Final Act. 3--4, 8-9; Ans. 9-15) and
adopt them as our own. The following discussion, findings, and conclusions
are for emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellant contends Kim only discloses that a user inputs a symbol
into a touch pad or touch screen 200 and thereby invokes an application in a
separate LCD2 module 160. (See generally App. Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 1--4.)
Appellant explains as follows:
Fig. 5 of Kim depicts a user interface 200 and a separate LCD
module 160. According to Kim, the user interface 200 can be a
touchpad or a touch screen. Even in arrangements where the
user interface 200 is implemented as a touch screen, it is noted
that although an input can be made at the touch screen 200, the
corresponding output due to such input is provided in a separate
display element, namely the separate LCD module 160 depicted
in Fig. 5 of Kim.
(Reply Br. 2-3.)
Kim discloses the following:
If the LCD-module 160 is implemented as a touch screen, it can
serve as an input device. The present invention is also
applicable in cases where the LCD module 160 serves as an
input and output device like a touch screen. The present
invention is also applicable in cases where the LCD module
160 serves as an input and output device like a touch screen.
2 Liquid crystal display. (Kim col. 1, 1. 56.)
4
Appeal2014-001358
Application 12/867,709
(Kim col. 4, 11. 59---61 (emphasis added).) Kim further discloses "[t]he user
interface 200 can be a ... touch screen .... " (Kim col. 5, 11. 8-9.)
We find the foregoing passages disclose an alternative embodiment of
Kim's invention in which Kim's LCD module serves as both the touch-
sensitive input device, fulfilling the function of Kim's user interface 200
(Kim Fig. 5), and as the output device, fulfilling the function of Kim's LCD
module 160 (id.). In other words, Kim discloses a single touch screen used
as both the touch-sensitive input device and the output device. Therefore,
we see no error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection for anticipation by Kim of (1)
claim 1; (2) independent claims 9 and 14, which were argued relying on the
arguments presented for claim 1 (see App. Br. 7); and (3) 4--7, 12, 17, 19,
21, 24, and 26, which variously depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1,
9, and 14 and were not separately argued with particularity (see App. Br. 6-
7). "[A] disclosure that anticipates under § 102 also renders the claim
invalid under§ 103, for 'anticipation is the epitome of obviousness."'
Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir.1983)
(quoting Jn reFracalossi, 681F.2d792, 794 (CCPA 1982)). Accordingly,
we also sustain the alternative rejection of claims 1, 4--7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19,
21, 24, and 26 as obvious over Kim.
Appellant relies solely on the arguments made for their respective
base claims in arguing the patentability of claims 20, 22, 25, and 27, which
variously depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 9, and 14 (see App.
Br. 7). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the
rejections of claim 20 as obvious over Kim and Ilan and claims 22, 25, and
27 as obvious over Kim and Iwema.
5
Appeal2014-001358
Application 12/867,709
Claim 23
Appellant contends that, because Kim only teaches two separate
display screens, a person of ordinary skill in the art combining Kim with
Wu's rotatable connection would have placed Kim's touch screen 200 in
Wu's fixed base with Wu's keyboard, rather including it as a touch screen in
Wu's rotatable display. (See generally App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4---6.)
Because, as discussed supra, we do not agree that Kim fails to teach
using a single touch screen as both the input and output device, we see no
error in the rejection of claim 23. We note that the combination of Kim's
method of invoking an application with Wu's rotatable connection between
a base unit and a display unit is no more than a "combination of familiar
elements according to known methods ... [that] does no more than yield
predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007); see also Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976) (holding
that when a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the
same function it had been known to perform" and yields no more than one
would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious).
Therefore, we find no error in the rejection of claim 23. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 23 and claim 28, which is argued together
with claim 23 (App. Br. 9).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4--7, 9, 12, 14, 17,
and 19-28, is affirmed.
6
Appeal2014-001358
Application 12/867,709
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
kme
7