Ex Parte Eldridge

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12792165 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

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.
12/792,165 06/02/2010 Martin Eldridge ELD3-N07 4174
22848 7590 10/31/2016
STEINS & ASSOCIATES
2333 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH
SUITE 120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
EXAMINER
MISHLER, ROBIN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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 MARTIN ELDRIDGE
____________________

Appeal 2015-004976
Application 12/792,165
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–3, and 6–18. Claims 4 and 5 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2015-004976
Application 12/792,165

2

A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates “generally to computing
devices and systems” and “more specifically, to a Touchscreen Interfacing
Input Accessory System and Method” (Spec. ¶ 2, ll. 3–5).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. An assembly for providing input to, or accepting output
from a programmable computer, said programmable computer
comprising a display monitor for displaying visible images
thereon and detecting user touches directly thereto, the assembly
comprising:
an interface module, comprising:
a first housing;
an attachment element associated with said
first housing for attaching said first housing directly to said
display monitor touch-sensitive surface;
an input/output element defined by an input element
portion and an output element portion physically associated with
said first housing, said input element portion attached directly to,
and cooperating with said touch-sensitive display monitor
surface to simulate direct user touches thereto, and said output
element portion cooperating with said visible image display
portion to convert said monitor-displayed visible images into
computer-readable data; and
at least one input/output device, each said
input/output device comprising:
a second housing in spaced relation to said
first housing; and
a communications conduit linking said interface
module to said input/output devices, whereby said input element
portion generates said simulated direct user touches responsive
to a user input to a said input/output device and said input/output
device receives computer-readable data from said programmable
computer responsive to said output element portion detecting
monitor-displayed visible images.

Appeal 2015-004976
Application 12/792,165

3

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Robbins US 5,421,590 June 6, 1995
Jaeger et al. US 2008/0042993 A1 Feb. 21, 2008
Jaeger et al. US 8,199,114 B1 June 12, 2012
Twain US 8,199,114 B1 June 12, 2012

Claims 1–3, and 6–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Jaeger ‘114, Jaeger ‘993, and Robbins.
Claims 14–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings of Jaeger ‘114, Robbins and Jaeger ‘993.

II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Jaeger ‘114, Jaeger ‘993, and Robbins
teaches or suggests an “interface module” comprising a “first housing” and
an “input/output element”; and at least one “input/output device” comprising
a “second housing in spaced relation to said first housing;” whereby “said
input/output device receives computer-readable data from said
programmable computer responsive to said output element portion [of the
input/output element] detecting monitor-displayed visible images” (claim 1).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appeal 2015-004976
Application 12/792,165

4

Jaeger ‘114
1. Jaeger ‘114 discloses joysticks removably adhered to a touch screen
that is used to emulate their respective functions (Abst.).
Jaeger ‘993
2. Jaeger ‘993 discloses a sensor pad input system for use with an
electronic display screen that includes a transparent sensor pad overlying the
display and at least one tactile input device removably secured to the sensor
pad (Abst.).
3. Figure 14 is reproduced below:

Figure 14 shows a joystick embodiment 25 of the input device which
comprises a housing 98 secured to a sensor pad 21 that overlays a display
screen 31 by a layer 44 of releasable adhesive, and emitter/receptor 41 and
42 directed downward from the housing 98 to inject a coded IR signal into
the sensor pad 21 and to receive light from adjacent pixels of display 31,
respectively. The coded signal is injected by the IR emitter 41 into the
sensor pad light pipe and received by the sensors, resulting in the joystick
physical inputs being detected and decoded and transmitted to the electronic
device that is operatively associated with the display screen 31. (¶ 40). The
Appeal 2015-004976
Application 12/792,165

5

pad 21 is placed directly in front of the display screen so that user inputs
may be detected and transmitted to an electronic device that is operatively
connected to the display screen. (¶ 21).
Robbins
4. Robbins discloses a plurality of joysticks/controllers plugged into a
processing unit coupled to a video monitor (col. 2, ll. 25–36; Fig. 1).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1
allows users to provide input to and receive input from “a computing
device” by “attaching an interface module to the touch-sensitive screen 10 of
a computer device,” the interface module being “housed within a first
housing, and is interconnected to one or more input/output devices 70 by
communication cable 72,” wherein the input/output devices 70 can be
“joysticks” in “spaced relation to the interface module 62, and are housed in
separate physical housings from one another” (App. Br. 8). Based on the
record before us, as discussed in further detail below, we are unpersuaded of
error with the Examiner’s finding that Jaegar ‘993 (FF 2–3), in combination
with Jaegar’114 (FF 1) and Robbins (FF 4), teaches or at least suggests the
limitations of claim 1.
Here, we have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence
presented. However, we agree with the Examiner’s findings, and are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims would
have been obvious over the combined teachings.
Appellant contends Jaegar ‘114 “does not suggest either (a) user input
to a device that is separate, and in spaced relation to the screen-attached
touch actuator,” or “a device that can receive visual outputs from the display
Appeal 2015-004976
Application 12/792,165

6

monitor, and convert them into computer-readable data” (App. Br. 10–11).
Appellant also contends that Jaegar ‘993 “creates light actuations” rather
than “touch actuations,” and that the references “do not suggest an ‘output
element portion’ associated with a housing, such as is depicted in
Applicant’s item 68 of Figure 3B” (App. Br. 11).
Appellant’s contentions appear to be directed to what each reference
individually discloses or suggests (App. Br. 7–11), rather than what the
combination of the references teaches or would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981 ); In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner
points out, “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on the combinations of
references” (Ans. 3).
Furthermore, we give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997). However, “limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (citations omitted). Although Appellant contends that the references
“do not suggest an ‘output element portion’ associated with a housing, such
as is depicted in Applicant’s item 68 of Figure 3B” (App. Br. 11), we will
not read such example embodiment “depicted” in the figures of the
Specification into the claims. Instead, we will give the claims their broadest,
reasonable interpretation as specifically recited, consistent with the
Specification.
We note that although Appellant also contends Jaegar ‘114 does not
disclose or suggest “user input to a device that is separate, and in spaced
Appeal 2015-004976
Application 12/792,165

7

relation to the screen-attached touch actuator” (App. Br. 10–11, emphasis
added), we note the claims and the Specification do not define “in spaced
relation” (claim 1). In fact, the claims do not even require the housings to be
“separate” housings (App. Br. 10–11). As the Examiner points out,
“‘separate’ and ‘screen-attached touched actuator’ are not currently present
in the claim language” (Ans. 3).
Jaeger ‘114 discloses a joystick removably adhered to a touch screen
that is used to emulate its functions (FF 1). Jaeger ‘993 similarly discloses
at least one joystick removably adhered to a tactile pad/screen that is used to
emulate its function, wherein the joystick is separate and spaced from the
tactile pad/screen by a layer of releasable adhesive (FF 2–3). Giving “in
spaced relation” its broadest reasonable interpretation, we find both Jaeger
‘114 and Jaeger ‘993 disclose and suggest a second housing “in spaced
relation” to a first housing.
Nevertheless, as the Examiner points out, the Examiner relies on
Robbins to disclose and suggest “an interface device in spaced relation, and
interconnected by a communication cable to an input/output device [such as
a joystick]” (Ans. 4–5). We find no error with the Examiner’s finding that
the combination of Jaeger ‘114, Jaeger ‘993 and Robbins discloses and
suggests the contested limitation.
Jaeger ‘114 discloses a joystick removably adhered to a touch screen
that is used to emulate their respective function (FF 1). We find no error
with the Examiner’s reliance on Jaeger ‘114’s touch screen for disclosing an
“input element portion” that generates “simulated direct user touches” (id.).
Furthermore, Jaeger ‘993 discloses a joystick embodiment removably
adhered to a sensor pad/display screen which comprises an emitter-receptor
Appeal 2015-004976
Application 12/792,165

8

directed downward for injecting a signal into the sensor pad/display screen
and receiving light from adjacent pixels of the display, resulting in the
joystick physical inputs being detected and decoded and transmitted to the
electronic device that is operatively associated with the sensor pad/display
screen (FF 3). That is, Jaeger ‘993’s joystick is similar to Appellant’s
invention as summarized by Appellant (App. Br. 8), wherein Jaeger ‘993
provides two-way communication of information (FF 3). The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Jaeger ‘993 “discloses a device that can receive visual
outputs from the display monitor” and “convert them into computer-readable
data” (Final Rej. 3; Ans. 3).
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Jaeger
‘114 and Jaeger ‘993 for teaching and suggesting “input/output device” that
“receives computer-readable data from said programmable computer
responsive to said output element portion [of the input/output element]
detecting monitor-displayed visible images,” as required by claim 1.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
references teaches or suggests the contested claim limitations. On this
record, we are unconvinced of Examiner error in the rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 6–13, not argued separately and
thus falling therewith, over Jaeger ‘114, Jaeger ‘993, and Robbins.
As for claims 14–18, Appellant repeats the argument that the
references do not suggest “an interface device in spaced relation” or “an
input/output device” (App. Br. 12). However, as discussed above, we find
no error with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of references
discloses and suggests the contested limitations. On this record, we also
Appeal 2015-004976
Application 12/792,165

9

affirm the rejection of claims 14–18 over the combination of Jaeger ‘114,
Robbins and Jaeger ‘993.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3 and 6–18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED