Ex Parte Georgiev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2016

12820919 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/820,919 06/22/2010
45436 7590 03/22/2016
DEAN D, SMALL
THE SMALL PA TENT LAW GROUP LLC
225 S. MERAMEC, STE. 725T
ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Emil Markov Georgiev
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.
241185 (553-1582) 2993
EXAMINER
WANG, JIN CHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2016 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):
Docket@splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EMIL MARKOV GEORGIEV, ERIK PAUL KEMPER, RYAN
JEROME RAMOS, and LUDOVIC A VOT 1
Appeal2014-005975
Application 12/820,919
Technology Center 2600
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-22, which are all the pending claims. Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Electric
Company. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed May 2, 2013 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed December 2, 2013 ("App. Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed February 21, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellants' Reply
Brief filed April 21, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and the Specification filed June 22,
2010 ("Spec.").
Appeal2014-005975
Application 12/820,919
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-83, 14--16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Der Westhuizen (US 2011/0047459
Al, published Feb. 24, 2011) ("Van Der Westhuizen"); Hotelling et al. (US
2007/0182722 Al, published Aug. 9, 2007) ("Hotelling"); and Wang et al.
(US 2011/0107270 Al, published May 5, 2011) ("Wang"). Final Act. 4--47.
Claims 9-13, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Van Der W esthuizen, Hotelling, Wang and Braun et
al. (US 2009/0289779 Al, published Nov. 26, 2009) ("Braun"). Final Act.
47-57.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellants, "[t]he subject matter disclosed herein relates
generally to methods and systems for interacting with datasets, and more
particularly interacting with displayed datasets including reviewing,
manipulating and/or creating datasets for display." Spec. i-f 1. Independent
claim 1 is directed to a method, independent claim 14 is directed to a
workstation, and independent claim 22 is directed to a user interface. Claim
1 recites:
1. A method for interacting with displayed information, the
method comprising:
displaying information on a display having a surface
viewable by a user;
3 Claim 8 is not included within the list of claims subject to this rejection in
the Final Office Action at page 4 but is addressed at pages 25-28.
Appellants acknowledge that claim 8 is subject to this rejection in the
Appeal Brief at page 4.
2
Appeal2014-005975
Application 12/820,919
detecting one or more fingers of the user in proximity to a
surface of a multi-touch sensitive device and displaying an
indicator on the display, wherein the indicator corresponds to a
location of the detected fingers relative to the multi-touch
sensitive device;
receiving a user input at the surface of the multi-touch
sensitive device, the surface of the multi-touch sensitive device
being a different surface than the surface of the display viewable
by the user; and
manipulating the displayed information in response to the
received user input.
App. Br. 23.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-22 in light of
Appellants' arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. We
are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. We agree with
and adont the Examiner's findirnrn. reasonirn.!. and conclusions as set forth in
~ ~ / ~/
Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-57) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-
71 ). We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue, "[Van Der] Westhuizen does not disclose, teach or
suggest displaying an indicator on the primary display that corresponds to a
location of [the] detected fingers of the user relative to the multi-touch
screen," as recited in independent claims 1, 14, and 22. App. Br. 13-14.
The Examiner provides a detailed and well-supported response in the
Answer, which points to several teachings of the disputed limitation in Van
Der Westhuizen. Ans. 55---60. For example, the Examiner cites Figure 16 of
Van Der Westhuizen. Ans. 57. Figure 16 of Van Der Westhuizen is
reproduced below.
3
Appeal2014-005975
Application 12/820,919
44
/
Figur~ 16
12
15
Figure 16 of Van Der W esthuizen depicts a laptop computer with a "usual
primary display screen 12" and a "user interface 10 [which] includes a
multi-touch-sensitive display screen." Van Der \Vesthuizen if 59. \Vith
regard to Figure 16, the Examiner finds, "[Van Der] Westhuizen's indicator
explicitly includes on the primary display 12 an active window indicator
(FIG. 16) that indicates where the user's finger is placed on the secondary
display 10." Ans. 57. We agree with the Examiner that Figure 16 of Van
Der W esthuizen teaches the disputed limitation. Figure 16 of Van Der
Westhuizen clearly depicts displaying an indicator 44 on the primary display
12 of the location 42 of one or more fingers 30 relative to the multi-touch
sensitive device 10. Indeed, Appellants acknowledge Figure 16 "shows a
user selecting an icon on the left-hand side of the multi-touch screen, and as
a result, a window opens on the primary display." App. Br. 14. Appellants
present no argument as to why Figure 16 fails to teach the disputed
4
Appeal2014-005975
Application 12/820,919
limitation. See, e.g., App. Br. 14--15. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that the disputed limitation is taught by Van Der W esthuizen.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue:
the bases for rejecting the claims relies on an incorrect
interpretation of the recitation of "detecting one or more fingers
of the user in proximity to a surface of a multi-touch sensitive
device and displaying an indicator on the display, wherein the
indicator corresponds to a location of the detected fingers relative
to the multi-touch sensitive device."
Reply Br. 2. However, Appellants fail to provide any explanation as to how
the Examiner has incorrectly interpreted the claims or the recited limitation
or to point to any evidence or support for this contention. Id. Contrary to
Appellants' contention, the Examiner has interpreted the claims and recited
limitation in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation. See,
e.g., Ans. 5 5 ("Appellant[ s'] claim 1 recites a broad term 'indicator', which
does not necessarily have to be an indicator of any specific form or any
snecific shane or anv snecific size.") We are not nersuaded of error bv this _._ _._ el _._ / _._ el
argument.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-22 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5