Ex Parte Jayachandran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2018

14069346 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/069,346
7590
Guha Jayachandran
1121 Rollingdell Ct.
Cupertino, CA 95014
10/31/2013
07/19/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Guha Jayachandran
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.
3128
EXAMINER
FLORES, ROBERTO W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2018 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 GURA JAYACHANDRAN and VISHAL VAIDYANATHAN
Appeal 2017-008511
Application 14/069 ,346
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9-12, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. See Br. 6; Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 3 and 8 are cancelled. 1 Br. (Claims App'x) 18-19.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed invention "relates to the field ofhuman-
computer interaction and in particular, to ... facilitating interaction with
1 The Appeal Brief identifies claims 5, 6, and 8 as canceled. Br. 5. We view
this apparent error as typographical or clerical, and of no consequence.
Appeal 2017-008511
Application 14/069 ,346
computers and computing systems in an intuitive manner" (Spec. ,r 2) "using
writeable media" (id. ,r 5). Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
(a) a writeable medium, wherein:
(i) the writeable medium comprises at least one
photochromic, thermochromic or electrochromic
ink and does not comprise an electronic device,
(ii) the writeable medium is superimposed on a surface
of a writepad device and can be removed by hand;
and
(b) said writepad device, comprising:
(i) a plurality of sensors, wherein the sensors generate
position data by tracking a sequence of contact
positions of a stylus manipulated by the user on the
writeable medium; and
(ii) a processing system, wherein the processing
system:
initiates a display of markings
corresponding to the sequence of contact points of
the stylus by causing a change in one or more
optical properties of at least one ink of the
superimposed writeable medium,
generates tokens by performing pattern
recognition based, in part, on the position data,
executes commands by parsing the tokens,
and
initiates a display of the results obtained by
the execution of commands by causing a change in
one or more optical properties of at least one ink of
the superimposed writeable medium.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Hattori et al.
("Hattori")
US 2002/0003726 Al
2
Jan. 10,2002
Appeal 2017-008511
Application 14/069 ,346
Koizumi
Iida et al.
("Iida")
Nichol et al.
("Nichol")
Eun et al.
("Eun")
US 2003/0016282 Al Jan. 23, 2003
US 2010/0177054 Al July 15, 2010
US 2011/0227487 Al Sept. 22, 2011
US 2012/0098772 Al Apr. 26, 2012
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Koizumi, Iida, and Eun. See Final Act. 3-7.
Claims 5, 7, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Koizumi, Iida, Eun, and Hattori. See Final Act. 7-9.
Claims 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Koizumi, Iida, Eun, and Nichol. See Final Act. 9-10.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief
("Br." filed Sept. 4, 2016) for the Appellants' positions; the Final Office
Action ("Final Act." mailed Feb. 4, 2016) and Examiner's Answer ("Ans."
mailed Nov. 8, 2016) for the Examiner's reasoning, findings, and
conclusions; and the Specification ("Spec." including the Substitute
Specification (pages 1-29) filed Oct. 11, 2014, and the claims (pages 30-
32), abstract (page 33), and drawings (4 sheets) filed Oct. 31, 2013).
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants' arguments is whether
the combination of Koizumi, Iida, and Eun teaches or suggests
a writeable medium, wherein: the writeable medium ... does
not comprise an electronic device, [and] ... [a] writepad device,
comprising: . . . a processing system, wherein the processing
system: ... initiates a display of the results obtained by the
3
Appeal 2017-008511
Application 14/069 ,346
execution of commands by causing a change in one or more
optical properties of at least one ink of the ... writeable medium
( the "argued limitation"), as recited in claim 1 (parenthetical letters and
romanets omitted).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Koizumi teaches a writable medium that does not
comprise an electronic device (Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Koizumi ,r 11, Fig. 1 );
Ans. 3---6 (additionally citing Koizumi ,r 13)). In the Final Office Action the
Examiner relies on Eun to teach the processing system of the writepad
device initiating a display by causing a change in the optical properties of an
ink of the writable medium (Final Act. 5---6 ( citing Eun ,r 27) but relies on
Iida for this teaching in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-6 (citing Iida ,r,r 77,
85, 98-99, Fig. 9)).
Appellants contend that because none of the applied references teach a
processing systems that is capable of initiating a display on a writable
medium that does not comprise an electronic device, "the applied
combination of references fails to teach all the elements of Claim 1." Br. 12.
Appellants explain as follows
None of the reference[s] suggested that non-electronic media
were in any way equivalent to electronic displays, or that non-
electronic media could be used to accept and display output from
their processing systems. In fact, Koizumi and Iida suggested
the opposite, by including separate electronic devices as output
displays instead of using their non-electronic media for such a
purpose, whereas Eun did not even mention an allegedly non-
electronic medium. The processing systems of the applied
references could print to electronic displays, but were incapable
of printing to a non-electronic medium as required by Claim 1.
Br. 13. We agree with Appellants.
4
Appeal 2017-008511
Application 14/069 ,346
The Examiner is correct that Koizumi teaches a writable medium that
is not an electronic device. Final Act. 3 ( citing Koizumi ,r 11, Fig. 1 (item
20)); see also Koizumi Fig. 4. Iida similarly teaches a writable medium that
is not an electronic device, i.e., "pressure-sensitive display sheet 12." Iida
,r 77; see also id. ,r,r 77, 81, 84--85, 88, 98-99, Fig. 9. Eun only teaches
writing on electronic devices using touchscreen technology and does not
teach non-electronic writable media. See, e.g., Eun ,r,r 2-7.
Both Koizumi and Iida teach a device having an associated processor
that initiates a display, i.e., Koizumi's writing tablet 10 having processor
based system (Koizumi, Abstract, Figs. 1, 4) and Iida' s image processing
device associated with writing information detecting device 14 or electronic
paper sheet 16 (Iida ,r 81 ). However, neither Koizumi not Iida teach that the
processor can initiate a display on the non-electronic writing medium.
Koizumi, at least implicitly, teaches that the processor initiates a
display on touch screen 42 (Koizumi ,r 19, Fig. 4}-the only display on the
non-electronic medium, writing sheet 20, is initiated by the action of writing
instrument 22 (id. ,r 13).
Iida teaches that the image processing device initiates a display on
electronic paper sheet 16. Iida ,r 85. Iida teaches that the image is written
on the non-electronic writing medium, pressure-sensitive display sheet 12,
by the contact of the electromagnetic induction pen 20, "separately from the
display on the electronic paper sheet 16." Id. ,r 88; see also Br. 12 (citing
Iida ,r 3 5). Iida teaches the following:
Although the electronic paper sheet 16 serving as a liquid
crystal display medium is used as the image display device in this
embodiment, the image display device according to the present
invention is not limited to the electronic paper sheet 16. Any
5
Appeal 2017-008511
Application 14/069 ,346
image display device may be adopted instead of the electronic
paper sheet 16, provided that the image display device has a
function of displaying an image of the shape of the above-
mentioned movement locus on the display section depending on
the writing information detected using the writing information
detecting device.
Examples of the image display device that can be adopted
may include not only the liquid crystal display device used in this
embodiment but also the so-called electronic paper sheets, such
as a device that uses toner rotation, a device that uses
electrophoresis, a thermal rewritable device and an
electrochromic device, as preferred devices. Furthermore,
devices, such as a CRT ( cathode ray tube) and an organic EL
( electro luminescence) device, are also applicable.
Iida ,r,r 98-99. Appellants contend, and we agree, that one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand each of the examples of an electronic paper sheet
to comprise an electronic device. See Br. 11. The Examiner finds that "Iida
... teaches in [0098-0099] that any image display device may be adopted
instead of the electronic paper sheet such as electrophoresis, thermal
rewritable device, electrochromic device devices." Ans. 6 (brackets in
original). We disagree. Paragraphs 98-99 describe several alternative forms
of electronic paper sheets using liquid crystal, toner rotation, electrophoresis,
thermal, and electrochromic technologies. We find that one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that each of the described alternatives in
paragraphs 98-99 is an electronic device. We note that although some of the
identified technologies may be used in a medium that does not comprise an
electronic device, they may also be used in electronic devices. The
Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the identification of such technologies to necessarily imply a
medium that does not comprise and electronic device.
6
Appeal 2017-008511
Application 14/069 ,346
Appellants have established error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claim 1 and claims 2, 4--7,
and 9--12, which depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("Dependent claims are nonobvious
under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.")
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9--12 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7