Ex Parte Funahashi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13680948 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
13/680,948 11/19/2012 Kiyofumi FUNAHASHI RYM-723-3559 5168
27562 7590 10/02/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
MARTINEZ QUILES, IVELISSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIYOFUMIFUNAHASHI, YASUMASA MIYOSHI,
and HIROKI TAKUMA
Appeal 2017-006101
Application 13/680,9481
Technology Center 2600
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—22, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nintendo Co., Ltd.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-006101
Application 13/680,948
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates to touchscreen operations on a
computing device, and specifically, detecting and utilizing both input area
and input force of a user’s touch in such operations. Spec. 17. By utilizing
area and force, along with the touch position, an “operation can be
performed based on the three parameters . . . and thereby a wider variety of
operations can be performed.” Id. at || 13—14. Claims 1, 17—19, and 21 are
independent. Claims 1 and 21 are illustrative of the invention and subject
matter of the appeal, and read as follows:
1. A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium
having stored therein a program which causes a computer of an
information processing apparatus including a force detection unit
which detects a force applied to the information processing
apparatus to function as:
an evaluation unit which obtains a touch position from a touch
input unit and evaluates an input area of a touch input; and
an information processing unit which performs one type of
predetermined information processing based on the input area
and the force detected by the force detection unit,
wherein in the one type of predetermined information
processing, a first parameter, which changes in accordance with
the detected force, and a second parameter, which changes in
accordance with the evaluated input area, are controlled
temporally parallel to each other.
21. An information processing apparatus comprising:
a display configured to display a plurality of selection targets;
a touch panel on the display; and
2
Appeal 2017-006101
Application 13/680,948
a processor configured to perform at least:
calculating a contact area based on a touch input on the
touch panel; and
determining which selection target is selected based on at
least a size of the contact area and a position relationship
in a depth direction between one selection target and
another selection target.
App. Br. 21, 27—28 (Claims App.) (formatting added).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—4, 7—10, 12—14, and 16—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rekimoto (US 8,477,115 B2;
July 2, 2013) and Freed (US 9,030,419 Bl; May 12, 2015). Final Act. 6—31.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under pre-AI A 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rekimoto, Freed, and Roberts (US 2002/0163509
Al; Nov. 7, 2002). Final Act. 31-35.
Claim 11 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rekimoto, Freed, and Chen (US 2009/0153495 Al; June
18,2009). Final Act. 35-38.
Claim 15 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rekimoto, Freed, and Kim et al. (US 2011/0050594 Al;
Mar. 3, 2011). Final Act. 38-40.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Momeyer et al. (US 2012/0105358 Al; May 3,
2012) (“Momeyer”) and Griffin (US 2011/0050619 Al; Mar. 3, 2011).
Final Act. 40-44.
3
Appeal 2017-006101
Application 13/680,948
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are unpersuaded
the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7—10, 12—14, and 16—20
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests first and second “parameters” that change in accordance with
“detected force” and “evaluated input area,” respectively, as recited in claim
1. App. Br. 9—11 ? Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding
the prior art (specifically, Freed) teaches or suggests “controlling” the
second parameter according to evaluated input area, as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 3—5. Finally, Appellants argue the Examiner
erred in combining Freed and Rekimoto, because the combination is based
upon hindsight and would change the principle of operation of Rekimoto.
App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 6—7. We, however, are unpersuaded by
Appellants’ arguments.
2 Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 7—10, 12—14, and 16—20 as a group, and
we choose claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2017-006101
Application 13/680,948
We first address the claimed “parameters,” which Appellants
emphasize are “distinct” from detected force and detected input area. App.
Br. 11. As the Examiner finds, Freed teaches a touch input system that
detects an area and force upon a touchpad, and measures (i.e., generates
“parameters” for) the area and force of the touch. Ans. 3^4 (citing Freed
col. 19,11. 33—54); see also Freed col. 17,11. 39-53. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand the area and force detection in Freed to
generate “parameters,” i.e. some representation of the amount of area and
force, because, as the Examiner finds, Freed teaches mapping the contact
area and force to a “2x2 matrix” having four different commands. Ans. 4
(citing Freed col. 19,11. 33—54). Freed teaches that the parameters
corresponding to number of fingers (contact area) and level of force,
collectively, determine the commands according to the 2x2 matrix. Id.
(“2x2 matrix of four commands that may be generated based on the amount
of force and number of fingers'’'’). Freed, accordingly, teaches first and
second “parameters” that change in accordance with “detected force” and
“evaluated input area,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants further argue that the term “first parameter” cannot mean
“detected force,” because claim 1 requires the first parameter to ‘'‘'change
according to detected force.” App. Br. 11 (emphasis added). The Examiner,
however, has not interpreted “parameter” to mean detected force (or detected
input area), but rather a value or measurement associated with the detection.
As discussed above, Freed teaches that different levels of force generate
different commands on a matrix. See supra. Accordingly, Freed teaches
5
Appeal 2017-006101
Application 13/680,948
differentiating between different levels of force, i.e., generating
“parameters” associated with force, such that the parameters change in
accordance with the detected force. Ans. 4.3 Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Freed teaches or suggests the
claimed “parameters” that change in accordance with “detected force” and
“evaluated input area.”4
For similar reasons, we also are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the prior art teaches “controlling” the second parameter according to
an evaluated input area. App. Br. 12. Appellants concede Freed teaches or
suggests detecting “whether a single finger” touches the input screen. Id.
Appellants argue, nevertheless, “Freed does not teach anywhere that it
determines a size of an input areal’ Id. (emphasis added). As the Examiner
finds, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the
detected “touch area” (and therefore its corresponding parameter) would
change as the user changes the number of fingers (including changing from
zero to some value, when a single finger touches the screen). Ans. 4. Claim
1 does not recite the precision with which input area must be measured, or
3 See also Spec. 160 (“a parameter representing a depth/height. . . [of] a
pressing direction of a touch operation”); id. at 165 (“the user can obtain
two types of parameters representing the contact area and the force applied
to the information processing apparatus”); see also In re Am. Acad, of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claim terms given their
“their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”)
4 Rekimoto also teaches changing parameters based upon input force and
contact area. See Rekimoto figs. 2B, 3B, col. 5,11. 15—37, col. 5,11. 54—60.
6
Appeal 2017-006101
Application 13/680,948
any particular size. See also Spec. Figs. 3, 4 (illustrating contact area
corresponding to one finger, and then two fingers touching the screen).
Rather, claim 1 recites “evaluating] an input area” and changing a
“parameter” in “accordance with the evaluated input area.” Accordingly, we
discern no error in the Examiner’s finding Freed teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation. See supra.
Finally, Appellants argue the Examiner’s combination of Freed and
Rekimoto is based upon impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 13—15. As long
as the Examiner “takes into account only knowledge which was within the
level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made
and does not include knowledge gleaned only from [AJpplicanf s
disclosure,” the Examiner’s combination is “proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443
F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Appellants present no evidence the
Examiner relied upon Appellants’ disclosure. Rather, as the Examiner finds,
both Rekimoto and Freed teach or suggest measuring contact area and force
on an input device, and performing operations according to those
measurements. See Innovention Toys LLC v. MGA Entertainment Inc., 637
F.3d 1314, 1322—23 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding sufficient basis for combining
prior art features that share the “same purpose,” “goal,” or “objective”).
Appellants further contend the combination necessarily changes the
principle of operation of Rekimoto, which Appellants assert requires the use
of a single finger. App. Br. 14. The Examiner, however, is not relying on a
bodily incorporation of Freed into Rekimoto. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (test for obviousness is not whether one reference
7
Appeal 2017-006101
Application 13/680,948
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another, but “what the
combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art”). As the Examiner finds, Rekimoto teaches a
surface touch input unit that receives a finger contact and detects position,
area, and force thereof, while Freed teaches “changing parameters” based on
detected force and area of input. Ans. 3—6. On the record before us, we find
the Examiner has sufficiently “articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning to support” the combination of references, and the conclusion
of obviousness. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7—
10, 12-14, and 16-20.
Claim 3
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests “one type of predetermined information processing based on both
of the input area and the force detected,” as recited in claim 3. App. Br. 18
(emphasis added); Reply Br. 9. We disagree.
As the Examiner finds, Rekimoto teaches a “zoom” operation (one
type of predetermined information processing) executed according to contact
(input) area and force. Ans. 10-11; Rekimoto Fig. 4 (steps SI 1—12).
Appellants contend Rekimoto responds to contact force and area differently,
such that “no one type of processing operation is performed by controlling
both of the evaluated input area and the detected force.” App. Br. 18
(emphasis added); Reply Br. 4. Appellants, however, present no evidence in
support of this argument. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
8
Appeal 2017-006101
Application 13/680,948
1997) (mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value); see
also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 21
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in combining Momeyer with
Griffin. App. Br. 16—17. Specifically, Appellant contends one of ordinary
skill in the art would not combine the references because they are redundant,
and thus a combination would be “wasteful.” App. Br. 17. We are not
persuaded by this argument.
As the Examiner finds, Momeyer teaches a touchpad that determines
contact force via hardware force sensors. Ans. 11; Final Act. 41; Momeyer
143. Griffin, in turn, teaches that “force can be correlated to at least a size
of a contact areal'’ Ans. 13 (emphasis added); Final Act. 42; Griffin 139.
As the Examiner finds, substituting Griffin’s teaching of correlating force
with contact area, for Momeyer’s force measurement hardware, would be a
“simple substitution” for one of ordinary skill in the art, with “predictable
results.” Ans. 13; see KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415—16,
417 (2007). Moreover, Appellants have not provided any persuasive
evidence to show the combination would have been “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 21.
9
Appeal 2017-006101
Application 13/680,948
Remaining Claims 5, 6, 11, and 15
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5, 6, 11, and
15 for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 18. Because we discern no
error regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants’ argument regarding
claim 5, 6, 11, and 15 also is not persuasive of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 5, 6, 11, and 15.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—22.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
10