Ex Parte Chambers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2013

11888238 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER CHAMBERS, WAYNE SCOTT,
CHERYL SCOTT, ALLEN YUH, and PAUL D. ARLING
__________

Appeal 2011-011493
Application 11/888,238
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
portable electronic device adapted to accept a gesture based input from a
user. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Universal
Electronics Inc. (See App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2011-011493
Application 11/888,238

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“This invention relates generally to user interfaces for electronic
devices. Exemplary devices include personal digital assistants (‘PDAs’),
Web Tablets, touch screen remote controls, mobile phones, lap-top
computers, and the like” (Spec. 1, ll. 16-18).
The Claims
Claims 1-39 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 5 are representative and read
as follows:
1. A portable electronic device adapted to accept a gesture
based input from a user, comprising a touch screen pad used to
accept the gesture based input, wherein the gesture based input
comprises a motion made across a surface of the touch screen pad,
wherein the motion made across the surface of the touch screen
pad has a direction characteristic, a length characteristic, and a
speed characteristic, and wherein the touch screen pad comprises a
plurality of gesture accepting areas, each gesture accepting area
being arranged to accept a gesture based input having a direction
characteristic that is unique with respect to the other gesture
accepting areas.

5. A portable electronic device adapted to accept a gesture
based input from a user, comprising a touch screen pad being used
to display content and to accept the gesture based input, wherein
the gesture based input comprises a motion made across a surface
of the touch screen pad, wherein the motion made across the
surface of the touch screen pad has a direction characteristic, a
speed characteristic, a length characteristic, and an end point
characteristic and wherein programming associated with the touch
screen pad functions to modify a first parameter of the content
being displayed as a function of at least one of the characteristics
of the motion made across the surface of the touch screen pad.

Appeal 2011-011493
Application 11/888,238

3
The issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 11-17, 19-34, and 37-39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pronto2 and Ludtke3 (Ans. 4-14).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 6-10, 18, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pronto, Ludtke, and Hayes Ubillos4 (Ans. 14-18).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pronto and Ludtke
The Examiner finds that:
Pronto discloses a portable electronic device adapted to
accept a gesture based input from a user, comprising a touch
screen pad used to accept the gesture based input (pg.2, left
figure, “256 color LCD touch screen”), the touch screen pad
comprises a plurality of gesture accepting areas, each
gesture accepting area being arranged to accept a gesture
based input having a direction characteristic that is unique
with respect to the other gesture accepting areas (pg.8, sect.
2; an area to scroll in the up direction and an area to scroll in
the down direction is displayed).

(Ans. 4.) The Examiner finds that “Ludtke discloses wherein the gesture
based input comprises a motion made across a surface of the touch screen
pad, wherein the motion made across the surface of the touch screen pad has
a direction characteristic, a length characteristic, and a speed characteristic”
(id.).
The Examiner finds it obvious to “modify the touch screen remote
controller taught by Pronto to include a variable content scroller taught by

2 Pronto user guide, Universal Electronics Inc., 1-56 (1999).
3 Ludtke, H., US 6,867,764 B2, issued Mar. 15, 2005.
4 Hayes Ubillos, R., US 2003/0016248 A1, published Jan. 23,
2003.
Appeal 2011-011493
Application 11/888,238

4
Ludtke with the motivation being to increase the speed, accuracy and
selectivity of accessing data over a broad range” (Ans. 5).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Pronto and
Ludtke render claims 1, 5, and 20 obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Pronto teaches that the “Intelligent Remote Control can be used
for most devices that understand infrared (IR) remote control signals. Its
easy-to-use touch screen with 256 colors and its intuitive interface makes it a
perfect remote control for every user” (Pronto 2, italics omitted).
2. Pronto teaches an appliance as reproduced below:

Appeal 2011-011493
Application 11/888,238

5
3. Pronto teaches
Tap Next. A scrollable list of brands for the selected
device and a “virtual auto-zooming” mini-keyboard appears
. . . Navigate through the list of brands using the scroll
buttons and to scroll up or down in the list of brands.
• By tapping the scroll buttons, you scroll through the
brands one by one.
• By holding down the scroll buttons, the scrolling
speed increases.

(Pronto 8.)
4. Pronto teaches a controllable display reproduced below:

The controllable display shows a screen for navigating TV brands either
using an up or down scroll arrow or a keyboard. Id.
5. Ludtke teaches that “routine 81 may allow the user to cycle
through data by sliding on bar 15 but not necessarily dragging the pointer
12. . . . The direction of the cycle is determined by the direction of the slide.
Potential values may be continuously selected and displayed until the user
taps the slider or a textbox” (Ludtke, col. 10, ll. 24-33).
Appeal 2011-011493
Application 11/888,238

6
6. Ludtke teaches that
Rather than basing the cycle amount of such a slide on
the distance traveled, the cycle amount may also be a
function of acceleration or velocity. A quick motion may
cause the program to choose a cycle amount which is greater
than the cycle amount chosen for a slower motion

(Ludtke, col. 10, ll. 34-38).
7. Figure 9 of Ludtke is reproduced below:

“FIG. 9 is a graph of a slider image” (Ludtke, col. 2, l. 14).
8. Ludtke teaches that the “candidate value selected by the
program is displayed in the selected textbox 13c. The pointer 12 is
Appeal 2011-011493
Application 11/888,238

7
positioned at the point of the tap or end point of the drag so that the user can
see the amount of the decrement or increment” (Ludtke, col. 8, ll. 49-52).
Principles of Law
“In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, the
Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
based upon the prior art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417.
Analysis
Claim 1
Appellants contend that “Pronto fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the
particularly claimed aspect of a touch screen pad having a plurality of
gesture accepting areas that are arranged to accept a gesture based input
having a motion direction characteristic that is unique with respect to other
gesture accepting areas” (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner finds that Pronto teaches a touch pad “having an up
direction gesture accepting area and a down direction gesture accepting area,
wherein tapping/gesturing the up direction gesture accepting area initiates an
Appeal 2011-011493
Application 11/888,238

8
upward direction and tapping/gesturing the down direction gesture accepting
area initiates a downward direction” (Ans. 18-19). The Examiner also finds
that Ludtke teaches “unique gesture accepting areas (Ludtke, fig.9, ‘115’)
that accepts motion direction inputs in varied degrees and distances, for
example, going from an area near ‘136’ to another area near ‘137’ requires a
slight south/west directional movement” (id. at 19).
We find that Appellants have the better position. While the Examiner
is correct that Pronto teaches cycling through data using both up and down
scroll buttons (FF 3), Ludtke teaches cycling through data using a single
slide bar (FF 5). The single slide bar of Ludtke functions to replace both
scroll buttons of Pronto, resulting in a single gesture accepting area. We
agree with Appellants that the Examiner has provided no teaching,
suggestion, or reason for incorporating “a plurality of gesture accepting
areas” with the input characteristics taught by Ludtke into the remote control
of Pronto as would be required for claim 1.
Claims 5 and 20
Appellants contend that “it is respectfully submitted that Pronto does
not disclose, teach, or suggest the core of the invention claimed” (App. Br.
11). Appellants contend that
[E]ven if one of skill in the art were to include in Pronto the
system disclosed in Ludtke, while one might arrive at a
system in which a motion based input is used to cause
different menu items, e.g., TV, etc., to be placed into a
displayed box, one of skill in the art would still not be led to
use characteristics associated with a motion based input to
Appeal 2011-011493
Application 11/888,238

9
change a parameter of content that is continually being
displayed in a display as claimed.

(App. Br. 11-12).
The Examiner finds that “Ludtke discloses a motion made across a
surface of the touch screen pad, wherein the motion made across the surface
of the touch screen pad has a direction characteristic, a speed characteristic,
a length characteristic and an end point characteristic” (Ans. 6). The
Examiner finds it obvious to “modify the touch screen remote controller
taught by Pronto to include a variable content scroller taught by Ludtke with
the motivation being to increase the speed, accuracy and selectivity of
accessing data over a broad range” (id.).
We find that the Examiner has the better position. Pronto is
reasonably interpreted as teaching a portable electronic device with a
touchpad that displays content and accepts input (FF 1-4). While Pronto
does not teach gesture based input, Ludtke teaches gesture based input
which may be based on “the direction of the slide . . . the distance traveled . .
. a function of . . . velocity” (Ludtke, col. 10, ll. 30-36; FF 5-6). Ludtke also
teaches that the gesture may be based on an “end point of the drag” (Ludtke,
col. 8, ll. 51-52; FF 8).
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
incorporate the gesture based input of Ludtke, including all of the
characteristics taught by Ludtke of direction, velocity (speed), distance
(length), and end points into the remote control of Pronto for increased
“speed, accuracy and selectivity of accessing data” (Ans. 6; FF 1-8).
Appeal 2011-011493
Application 11/888,238

10
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument regarding Pronto
alone (see App. Br. 11; cf. App. Br. 14 regarding claim 20), as the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 20 is based on the combination of
Pronto and Ludtke. It is the combination of Pronto with Ludtke which
renders claims 5 and 20 obvious for the reasons given above. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”)
We also do not find persuasive Appellants’ argument that Ludtke
would not suggest the use of the motion characteristics for combination with
Pronto (see App. Br. 11-12) since Ludtke expressly teaches gesture based
inputs based on direction, velocity (speed), distance (length), and end points
(FF 5-8). Given the express teaching by Ludtke to incorporate these
elements into a gesture based recognition system, we conclude that the
Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness as to claims 5 and
20. Appellants have provided no rebuttal evidence suggesting otherwise.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that the combination of Pronto and Ludtke render claim 1 obvious.
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination of Pronto and Ludtke render claims 5 and 20 obvious.
Appeal 2011-011493
Application 11/888,238

11
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pronto, Ludtke, and Hayes Ubillos
Appellants do not separately argue the claims in this obviousness
rejection. Having affirmed the obviousness rejection of independent claims
5 and 20 over Pronto and Ludtke, we also find that the further combination
with Hayes Ubillos is sound and fact based and renders the remaining claims
obvious for the reasons given by the Examiner (see Ans. 14-18).
SUMMARY
In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Pronto and Ludtke.
We affirm the rejection of claims 5 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Pronto and Ludtke. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we
also affirm the rejection of claims 11-17, 19, 21-34, and 37-39 as these
claims were not argued separately.
We affirm the rejection of claims 6-10, 18, 35, and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pronto, Ludtke, and Hayes.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc