Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13405316 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)

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.
13/405,316 02/26/2012 Yan Chen CN920100101US2 5505
58139 7590
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
05/02/2017 EXAMINER
LITTLEJOHN JR, MANCIL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YAN CHEN, XIAO HE,
KUANG HU, and GUO JUN ZHANG
Appeal 2017-001011
Application 13/405,316
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-001011
Application 13/405,316
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1—8, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[a] method for establishing a wireless
connection based on a touch screen of a wireless device.” (Abstract.) Claim
1, reproduced below, exemplifies the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for establishing a wireless connection based on a
touch screen of a wireless device, the method comprising:
determining, in response to a slide-out from an edge of the
touch screen, a first slide-out parameter for an other wireless de­
vice to determine an object to be connected;
broadcasting said first slide-out parameter;
determining a slide-in parameter in response to a slide-in from
the edge of the touch screen and reception of a second slide-out
parameter directionally transmitted from the other wireless de­
vice;
establishing, by a processor, a wireless connection between
said wireless device and said other wireless device if the deter­
mined slide-in parameter matches said second slide-out parame­
ter.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. (See App. Br. 1.)
2
Appeal 2017-001011
Application 13/405,316
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nomura (US 2011/0231783 Al; published Sept. 22, 2011)
and Claus (US 2008/0285626 Al; published Nov. 20, 2008). (See
Non-Final Act. 3—5.2)
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION3
Appellants argue the rejections are in error because “Nomura and
Claus, taken singly or in combination, do not teach ‘determining a slide-in
parameter in response to a slide-in from the edge of the touch screen and
reception of a second slide-out parameter directionally transmitted from the
other wireless device’ as recited in claim 1.” (App. Br. 4.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination does not determine a slide-in
parameter in response to a slide-in and “reception of a second slide-out
parameter directionally transmitted from” another device.
The Examiner responds that Nomura teaches slide-in and slide-out
parameters that are received at one of the terminals (the “server”). (Ans. 3.)
But the Examiner does not explain, nor do we see, how the combination
teaches or suggests determining a slide-in parameter in response to
2 Claims 3—5 and 8 are objected to as dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including the
limitations of the base and any intervening claims. (See Non-Final Act. 6.)
3 Because this issue is dispositive, we do not reach Appellants’ other
arguments.
3
Appeal 2017-001011
Application 13/405,316
reception of a slide-out parameter from another device. Nomura teaches that
each of the terminals determines slide-in and slide-out parameters that are
subsequently used to determine relative orientations of all the terminals, but
it does not teach or suggest that a slide-in parameter might be determined in
response to receipt of a slide-out parameter from another device, nor would
Nomura’s system lend itself to such an arrangement, because the trail data
for a given terminal (the slide-in/out parameters) is not shared with the other
terminals until after all of the trails are detected. (See, e.g., Nomura Tflf 75—
77 (“After . . . connection is established, the client 1 and the client 2
transmits trail data representing a trail of operation of the manipulating
object to the server (S206, S308).”), Fig. 6.)
Because we find Appellants’ contention persuasive, we do not sustain
the Section 103(a) rejection of claims 1—8.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—8 are reversed.
REVERSED
4