Ex Parte He et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

13184802 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/184,802 07/18/2011 Qi-Zhen He
126568 7590 06/29/2016
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
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.
102158US01 1137
EXAMINER
SHAPIRO, LEONID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QI-ZHEN HE, FENG-JUN GUO, WEI LIN, and DUAN-DUAN
YANG
Appeal2014-008581
Application 13/184,802
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JOHN KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, which represent all of the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to an electronic device with a
handwriting recognition application. See Spec. i-f 3.
Appeal2014-008581
Application 13/184,802
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a processor configured to execute a handwriting
recognition (HWR) application;
a memory configured to store the HWR application; and
a display configured to receive a finger gesture,
the HWR application determining a setting data and an
input data to be entered based on the finger gesture received on
the display, wherein the HWR application determines the
setting data as a function of (a) a number of fingers used in a
first contact of the finger gesture and (b) a first position of the
first contact on the display relative to a second position of the
first contact on the display within a predetermined time period
and the input data to be entered as a function of the determined
setting data and at least one of (i) a movement of the finger
gesture and (ii) a second contact of the finger gesture on the
display.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren (US 2007 /0176906 Al,
published Aug. 2, 2007) and Sip (2009/0284488 Al, published Nov. 19,
2009). Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Warren, Sip, and Tang (US 2007 /0040812 A 1,
published Feb. 22, 2007). Final Act 3--4.
1 Because Appellants do not argue this rejection, Appellants have failed to
show error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 19 and 20. Therefore, we
summarily sustain the rejection.
2
Appeal2014-008581
Application 13/184,802
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Warren, Sip, and Tan (US 2002/0306772 Al,
published Dec. 6, 2012). Final Act. 4--5.
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Warren, Sip, and Westerman (US 2012/0011462
Al, published Jan. 12, 2012). Final Act. 5.
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Warren, Sip, and Khamham (US 2012/0231738
Al). Final Act. 5-6.
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Warren, Sip, and Jiang (US 2011/0071818 Al).
Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Warren, Sip, and Pryor (2011/0037725 Al).
Final Act. 7.
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants' contentions is:
Did the Examiner err in finding one skilled in the art would have
recognized the combination of Warren and Sip teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation of:
the HWR application determining a setting data and an input
data to be entered based on the finger gesture received on the
display, wherein the HWR application determines the setting
data as a function of (a) a number of fingers used in a first
contact of the finger gesture and (b) a first position of the first
3
Appeal2014-008581
Application 13/184,802
contact on the display relative to a second position of the first
contact on the display within a predetermined time period and
the input data to be entered as a function of the determined
setting data and at least one of (i) a movement of the finger
gesture and (ii) a second contact of the finger gesture on the
display
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding one skilled in the art
would have recognized the combination of references teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations of claims 1-20. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the
Examiner's findings and conclusions set forth in the Final Rejection and
Answer (Ans. 3---6). Our discussions here will be limited to the following
points of emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellants acknowledge that Warren describes determining setting
data and that Warren describes input data being determined based on
detected motion. App. Br. 10-11. Appellants argue that Warren, however,
fails to disclose input data being determined as a function of the detected
motion along with the determined setting data. Id. We are not persuaded by
this argument. We agree with the Examiner's finding that paragraph 27 of
Warren teaches the claimed "determining setting data as a function of (a) a
number of fingers used in a first contact of the finger gesture and (b) a first
position of the first contact on the display relative to a second position of the
4
Appeal2014-008581
Application 13/184,802
first contact on the display within a predetermined time period." Final Act.
3. Warren explains that "the processor 119 can also determine when certain
types or combinations of object motions occur proximate the sensor."
Warren ,-r 27. Moreover, Warren distinguishes between motion of a first
object combination such as one finger and a second object combination such
as two adjacent fingers. Id. Warren "can generate the appropriate indication
in response to that motion." Id.
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that this description in Warren (e.g. ,-r 27) and Sip
teach or suggest determining "(a) a number of fingers used in a first contact
of the finger gesture and (b) a first position of the first contact on the display
relative to a second position of the first contact on the display within a
predetermined time period" as claimed. Moreover, we agree that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that if Warren teaches determining
the setting data (as acknowledged by Appellants) and determining that one
or more finger movements are detected (Warren i-fi-127 ("object motions"),
43), one of skill in the art would understand that Warren also teaches or
suggests "the input data to be entered as a function of the determined setting
data and at least one of (i) a movement of the finger gesture and (ii) a second
contact of the finger gesture on the display."
Appellants also argue that Sip uses two separate inputs to determine
the setting data and the input data. App Br. 13. We are not persuaded by
this argument, because we agree with the Examiner's finding that Warren
teaches setting data and that one of skill in the art would understand the
5
Appeal2014-008581
Application 13/184,802
combination of Warren and Sip to teach or suggest the disputed limitations
of claim 1, as discussed above.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Because Appellants
have not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-20.
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
6