Ex Parte Case et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

13734463 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/734,463 01/04/2013
58127 7590 12/21/2018
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michaela Rose Case
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.
RPS920120045USNP(710.213) 6831
EXAMINER
JAVED, MAHEEN I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAELA ROSE CASE, AARON MICHAEL STEWART,
WESLEY ABRAM LUTTRELL, MAMORU OKADA, and XIN FENG 1
Appeal2018-004804
Application 13/734,463
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 2--4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16-24, and
26-28. Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 15, and 25 have been canceled. Final Act. 1-2;
Appeal Br. 21. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest Lenovo (Singapore)
PTE. LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Jan. 4, 2013; Appeal
Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Nov. 21, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.")
filed Apr. 5, 2018. We also refer to the Final Office Action (Final
Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed June 22, 2017; and the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.") mailed Feb. 5, 2018.
Appeal2018-004804
Application 13/734,463
We reverse.
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns generally interfaces for
information processing (handling) devices, gesture detection, and gesture
recognition. See Spec. ,r 1. More specifically, the invention at issue on
appeal concerns devices and methods for detecting and recognizing gesture
input. Spec. 2--4; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 2, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
2. A method comprising:
operating one or more sensors to detect gesture input
proximate to a surface of an input device of an information
handling device, wherein the input device receives one or more
input types in addition to gesture input;
identifying a vertical distance, relative to the surface of the
input device, of the gesture input;
determining, using a processor, if the gesture input
detected matches a predetermined gesture selected from a
plurality of predetermined gestures, wherein each of the plurality
of predetermined gestures comprises one or more vertical
distance requirement characteristics relative to the surface of the
input device;
the determining further comprising identifying the
predetermined gesture comprising the gesture input performed at
the identified vertical distance; and
executing at least one response action associated with the
predetermined gesture being performed at the identified vertical
distance.
2
Appeal2018-004804
Application 13/734,463
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 2--4, 6, 7, 12-14, 16, 17, 20, 22,
and 26 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as anticipated by Marti et al. (US
2013/0257734 Al, published Oct. 3, 2013 (filed Mar. 30, 2012)) ("Marti").
2. The Examiner rejects claims 8, 10, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, and
28 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Ball (US
2010/0259482 Al, published Oct. 14, 2010).
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issues before us follow:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Marti discloses
determining, using a processor, if the gesture input detected
matches a predetermined gesture selected from a plurality of
predetermined gestures, wherein each of the plurality of
predetermined gestures comprises one or more vertical distance
requirement characteristics relative to the surface of the input
device
within the meaning of Appellants' claim 2 and the commensurate limitations
of claims 12 and 20?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Ball discloses
determining, using a processor, if the detected gesture input
matches a predetermined gesture selected from a plurality of
predetermined gestures input in a particular sub-region of the
surface of the input device, the sub-region comprising a plurality
of keys on a single planar surface of the input device and wherein
the sub-region comprises a plurality of gesture layers
within the meaning of Appellants' claim 8 and the commensurate limitations
of claims 18 and 21?
3
Appeal2018-004804
Application 13/734,463
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 2-4, 6, 7,
12-14, 16, 17, 20, 22, and 26
The Examiner rejects independent claim 2 (as well as independent
claims 12 and 20, and dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 26)
as being anticipated by Marti. See Final Act. 4--6; see also Final Act. 3-13;
Ans. 2-3. The Examiner finds that Marti describes matching ( determining a
match) between a detected input gesture and a selected predetermined
gesture including a distance (requirement) characteristic. See Final Act. 5;
Ans. 2-3 (citing Marti ,r,r 22, 28, 60, 70-72). The Examiner further explains
Marti describes "[ m ]ultiple gestures were able to be performed at a
particular distance correlating to a window in the layer mapped to a specific
height in a stack of layers, and therefore, the claim limitations are met."
Ans. 3.
Appellants contend that Marti does not disclose the disputed features
of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 21-23; Reply Br. 23-25. Specifically,
Appellants contend Marti does not disclose "determining, using a processor,
if the gesture input detected matches a predetermined gesture," or that "each
of the ... predetermined gestures comprises one or more vertical distance
requirement characteristics" as recited in claim 2. Appeal Br. 22 ( quotations
omitted). Appellants further contend that Marti, instead, specifically
describes utilizing "'collisions' and 'real-time visualization' to simulate
physical interactions between displayed objects and the user's hand," and
that "it is in error to equate real-time simulated physical interactions with
determining if a gesture input matches a predetermined gesture, as claimed."
Appeal Br. 22 ( citing Marti ,r 71 ). Appellants also contend the Examiner
misconstrues the disputed claim limitations in that Marti's stacked layers are
4
Appeal2018-004804
Application 13/734,463
not equivalent to the recited vertical distance requirement characteristics.
See Appeal Br. 22-23 ( citing Marti ,r 58 and Spec. ,r 37).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not explain
sufficiently how the cited portions of Marti describe the disputed features-
"determining ... if the gesture input detected matches a predetermined
gesture selected from a plurality of predetermined gestures" and "each of the
... predetermined gestures comprises one or more vertical distance
requirement characteristics relative to the surface of the input device" ( claim
2). Even if we concur with the Examiner and broadly interpret Marti's
detection of hand movement (see Marti ,r,r 22, 28), visualization of a user's
hand and its collisions with on-screen objects (see Marti ,r,r 71, 72),
detection of movement parallel to a top surface (see Marti ,r 28), and layer
selection based on a vertical distance indication ( above the keyboard) (see
Marti ,r 60), as gesture identification and vertical distance measurement, at
best Marti describes identifying a gesture, its interaction with on-screen
objects, and the identified gesture's vertical distance from a surface. Marti
does not explicitly describe matching gestures, much less matching gestures
to a selected gesture, or the matching including a vertical distance
requirement characteristic (i.e., the identified or measured vertical distance
of the detected gesture input matching a vertical distance requirement
characteristic of the selected predetermined gesture).
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Marti anticipates Appellants' claim 2.
Independent claims 12 and 20 include commensurate limitations, and
dependent 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 26 depend from and stand with
5
Appeal2018-004804
Application 13/734,463
claims 2 and 12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claims 2--4, 6, 7, 12-14, 16, 17, 20, 22, and 26.
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 8, 10, 18, 19,
21, 23, 24, 27, and 28
The Examiner rejects independent claim 8 (as well as independent
claims 18 and 21, and dependent claims 10, 19, 23, 24, 27, and 28) as being
anticipated by Ball. See Final Act. 12-14; see also Final Act. 12-20; Ans. 3.
The Examiner finds that Ball describes the detected gesture input, matching
a gesture input to a predetermined gesture, and the gesture input in a
particular sub-region of the surface of the input device, which includes a
certain area ( comprising a plurality of keys on a single planar surface of the
input device) as well as gesture layers. See Final Act. 12-14 ( citing Ball
,r,r 33, 38, 39, 41, 43-50). The Examiner further explains that Ball describes
"using a touch gesture in a touch height layer." Final Act. 13 ( citing Ball
,r,r 43--4 7).
Appellants contend that Ball does not disclose the disputed features of
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 23-25; Reply Br. 25-27. Specifically, Appellants
contend, inter alia, Ball does not disclose that "the sub-region comprises a
plurality of gesture layers" as recited in claim 8. Appeal Br. 24 ( quotations
omitted). Appellants further contend that Ball does not describe layers or
identifying gesture distance (from a keyboard-i.e., vertical distance). See
Appeal Br. 24--25; Ans. 26-27.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not explain
sufficiently how the cited portions of Ball describe the disputed features-
"determining ... if the detected gesture input matches a predetermined
gesture selected from a plurality of predetermined gestures input in a
6
Appeal2018-004804
Application 13/734,463
particular sub-region of the surface of the input device, the sub-region
comprising a plurality of keys on a single planar surface of the input device
and wherein the sub-region comprises a plurality of gesture layers" ( claim
8). None of the Examiner-cited portions of Ball describe a sub-region
including gesture layers (vertical distance characteristics). Compare Spec.
,r,r 34 and 36 (gesture input detection includes layer height), with Ball
,r,r 43--4 7 (key activation and touch gestures). It is unclear from the
Examiner's broad mapping and limited explanation what disclosure of Ball
meets the recited gesture layers.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Ball anticipates Appellants' claim 8.
Independent claims 18 and 21 include commensurate limitations, and
dependent 10, 19, 23, 24, 27, and 28 depend from and stand with claims 8
and 18. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claims 8, 10, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, and 28.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2--4,
6-8, 10, 12-14, 16-24, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 102(e).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 2--4, 6-8, 10, 12-14,
16-24, and 26-28.
REVERSED
7