Ex Parte Jiang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2017

13726523 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 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.
13/726,523 12/24/2012 Peigen Jiang CI-02 2987
57135 7590
PEIGEN JIANG
19480 SE 28TH PLACE
SAMMAMISH, WA 98075
03/16/2017 EXAMINER
JANSEN II, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2017 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):
DLPJ @ HOTMAIL.COM
pj@eficion.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PEIGEN JIANG
Appeal 2016-004320
Application 13/726,5231
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies the inventor, Peigen Jiang, as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-004320
Application 13/726,523
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “a computer input device
utilizing a touch sensing device and a conventional keyboard to provide
cursor input for the computer.” Spec. 1 16. In other words, the claimed
input device is a combination keyboard / mouse device. Spec. 11.
Claims 1 and 8 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'.
1. A computer input device comprising:
a keyboard having a plurality of keys for entering commands and
characters into the computer input device;
a touch sensor for detecting a touch by an object on a surface area
of the plurality of keys; and
an input processor coupled to both the keyboard and the touch
sensor and configured to compare timing of a key press on any of the
plurality of keys within the touch sensing surface area with timing of a
touch on the touch sensing surface area for making mode switching
decisions, the input processor configured to switch the computer input
device to a mouse mode when the touch occurs prior to the key press,
the input processor configured to switch the computer input device to a
keyboard mode when the touch and the key press occur at
approximately the same starting time.
8. The computer input device of claim 1, wherein the input
processor is configured to convey a primary click operation to the
computer when one or more of the plurality of keys are pressed in the
mouse mode.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1 and 3—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Suggs (US 2012/0274567 Al; Nov. 1, 2012 (filed
2
Appeal 2016-004320
Application 13/726,523
Apr. 29, 2011)) and Sugiura et al. (US 2013/0106700 Al; May 2, 2013
(foreign priority date of Nov. 2, 2011)) (“Sugiura”). Final Act. 5—11.
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Suggs, Sugiura, and Bowen (US 5,707,160; Jan. 13,
1998). Final Act. 11-13.
3. Claims 9, 10, and 12—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suggs, Sugiura, and Elias (US
2011/0006991 Al; Jan. 13,2011). Final Act. 13-22.
4. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Suggs, Sugiura, Elias, and Bowen. Final Act. 22—24.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Suggs and
Sugiura teaches or suggests comparing “timing of a key press on any of the
plurality of keys within the touch sensing surface area with timing of a touch
on the touch sensing surface area for making mode switching decisions,” as
recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Suggs teaches or suggests
ignoring “touch locations” or “any movement of the touching objects” in the
keyboard mode, as recited in claims 3 and 4?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Suggs and
Sugiura teaches or suggests “a timer to measure a length of elapsed time
when one of the plurality of keys is continuously touched by a single object
until the touched keys are pressed,” as recited in claim 7?
3
Appeal 2016-004320
Application 13/726,523
4. Did the Examiner err in finding Suggs teaches or suggests a
“primary click operation” is conveyed “when one or more of the plurality of
keys are pressed in the mouse mode,” as recited in claim 8?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding Elias teaches or suggests at
least one of a plurality of keys located outside of a designated surface area is
pressed at the same time as at least one of a plurality of keys located within a
designated surface area to convey a secondary click operation, as set forth in
claim 9?
ANALYSIS2
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15
In relevant part, claim 1 recites:
an input processor coupled to both the keyboard and the touch
sensor and configured to compare timing of a key press on any
of the plurality of keys within the touch sensing surface area with
timing of a touch on the touch sensing surface area for making
mode switching decisions, the input processor configured to
switch the computer input device to a mouse mode when the
touch occurs prior to the key press, the input processor
configured to switch the computer input device to a keyboard
mode when the touch and the key press occur at approximately
the same starting time.
In other words, when the touch on the touch sensing surface and a key
press occur at approximately the same time, the processor places the device
in keyboard mode. By contrast, the processor places the device in mouse
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
October 11, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed March 13, 2016
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on February 11, 2016
(“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed on July 29,
2015, from which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2016-004320
Application 13/726,523
mode when a touch is sensed on the touch sensing surface and a key press
are not at approximately the same time (i.e., a touch is sensed but is not
followed substantially immediately by a key depression). Thus, Appellant
asserts, as claimed, the input processor does not necessarily enter into
keyboard mode when a key is pressed. App. Br. 11. Rather, “[t]he mode
switching decision depends on a timing comparison between the key press
and a touch.” App. Br. 11.
Distinct from the claimed invention, Appellant argues Suggs teaches
when a key is pressed, the device is switched into keyboard mode. App.
Br. 11—12. Additionally, Appellant argues “Sugiura teaches mode switching
based on comparing contact time length with a threshold time instead of the
claim required comparing timing of a key press with timing of a touch.”
App. Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner explains Suggs teaches the processor may
use a threshold (e.g., pressure or a time duration) in order to determine the
desired mode of operation. Ans. 5. “[LJight input pressure without full key
depression and/or an additional qualifying characteristic (e.g., within a short
time period) may signal to the processor that the user desires to operate in a
touchscreen-related/touch-based input mode for mouse-based and multi-
touch operations.” Suggs 117. In other words, if a touch is sensed, but the
touched key is not pressed “within a short period of time,” Suggs teaches the
mouse mode is activated. Conversely, it is reasonably suggested that if the
key is pressed within the determined period of time after being touched, the
keyboard mode is activated. See Suggs 117 (“depression of a single key
area may signal to the processor that the user desires to operate in
[keyboard] mode”).
5
Appeal 2016-004320
Application 13/726,523
Further, the Examiner relies on Sugiura merely for teaching the use of
comparing a measured time to a threshold value, for example, in determining
contact with a key. Final Act. 8 (citing Sugiura Tflf 29—31, 63—64); see also
Ans. 8.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claim 10,
which recites similar limitations and was not argued separately. See App.
Br. 11. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 5, 6,
11, 14, and 15, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See
App. Br. 15.
Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13
Claim 3 recites the input processor is “configured to ignore touch
locations in the keyboard mode” and Claim 4 recites the input processor is
“configured to ignore any movement of the touching objects in the keyboard
mode.” Claims 12 and 13 recite similar language, respectively.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Suggs is inapposite
because the cited portions of Suggs occur while the device is in mouse
mode, whereas the claims limit operations in keyboard mode. App. Br. 13.
In referring to Figure 5 of Suggs, the Examiner finds that if the device
is in mouse mode, it is ignoring touch locations and touch movement in the
keyboard mode, specifically because the device is in mouse mode. Ans. 9—
10.
Additionally, to the extent Appellant is arguing the claims require the
device be in the keyboard mode when the input processor ignores touch
6
Appeal 2016-004320
Application 13/726,523
locations (claim 3) or movement of the touching objects (claim 4), we find
these arguments unpersuasive because they are not commensurate in scope
to the language of the claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability). Specifically, the claim does not recite “while operating” in
the keyboard mode and, thus, encompasses a device operating in the mouse
mode where all location senses are ignored.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3,4, 12,
and 13.
Claims 7 and 16
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites, inter alia, “a timer
to measure a length of elapsed time when one of the plurality of keys is
continuously touched by a single object until the touched keys are pressed.”
Appellant argues the contact time of Sugiura, as relied upon by the
Examiner, is different than the claimed “elapsed time.” App. Br. 14.
Specifically, rather than measuring the time until a touched key is pressed,
Appellant contends Sugiura teaches a contact time as “a time length from
when a finger is put in contact with a certain key to when the contact
between this key and the finger is released.” App. Br. 14 (quoting Sugiura
130) (emphasis omitted).
In response, the Examiner finds the contact time of Sugiura teaches “a
determination of continuous contact time with a key and thus regardless if
the key is pressed the contact time exceeding a predetermined amount will
be ignored.” Ans. 11 (citing Sugiura Tflf 64—66). The Examiner further
7
Appeal 2016-004320
Application 13/726,523
explains this provides a non-pressing touch of the key. Ans. 11.
Additionally, the Examiner explains Suggs teaches the use of a specified
period of time to determine when the keyboard or mouse modes of operation
are entered. Ans. 11 (citing Suggs, Fig. 5).
We find the Examiner’s explanation of a non-pressing touch time of
Sugiura does not teach the claimed elapsed time until a touched key is
pressed. Further, Suggs teaches “depression of a single key area may signal
to the processor that the user desires to operate in [keyboard] mode.” Suggs
]fl7. Additionally, Suggs teaches “light input pressure without full key
depression and/or an additional qualifying characteristic (e.g., within a short
time period) may signal to the processor that the user desires to operate in a
[mouse] mode.” Suggs 117. However, the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how Suggs teaches or suggests a measured length of elapsed time
until touched keys are pressed, as required in claim 7.
For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before
us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. For similar
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16, which
recites a similar limitation.
Claims 8 and 17
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the input
processor is configured to convey a primary click operation to the computer
when one or more of the plurality of keys are pressed in the mouse mode.”
Claim 17 depends from claim 10 and recites the same limitation.
In rejecting claims 8 and 17, the Examiner relies on Suggs as teaching
or suggesting the recited limitation. See, e.g.. Final Act. 11 (citing Suggs
8
Appeal 2016-004320
Application 13/726,523
19—20). We note, sua sponte, the cited section of Suggs teaches, inter
alia, if the user is in the mouse mode, “[i]f no movement is determined
[(while in the mouse mode)] . . . the processing unit may register the input as
a selection operation (e.g., mouse click).” Suggs 120. Other described
movements include a circular touch gesture, a closing of the index finger and
thumb (i.e., zoom-in), or expansion of the index finger and thumb (i.e.,
zoom-out). Suggs 120. However, the Examiner has neither identified nor
provided sufficient explanation or technical reasoning in support of a finding
that Suggs’s mouse click example occurs when one or more of a plurality of
keys are pressed. To the contrary, Suggs teaches when a key is pressed, the
processing unit determines the user wishes to enter the keyboard input mode.
Suggs 119.
For the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 8 and 17.
Claims 9 and 18
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites:
a designated surface area overlaying the plurality of keys for
touch sensing, wherein one of the plurality of keys located
outside of the designated surface area is designated as an
auxiliary key, when the auxiliary key and at least one of the
plurality of keys within the designated surface area are pressed
at the same time, the input processor is configured to convey a
secondary click operation to the computer.
Appellant contends that none of the prior art references teaches or
suggests “an inside key [(i.e., a key located within the designated surface
area)] and an outside key [(i.e., a key—denoted as an auxiliary key—located
outside of the designated area) are] pressed at the same time.” App. Br. 15.
9
Appeal 2016-004320
Application 13/726,523
Specifically, Appellant argues that Elias, as relied on by the Examiner, does
not teach any key is outside of a designated touch sensing area. App. Br. 15
(citing Elias 121).
Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, as the Examiner explains, Elias
teaches that not all keys on the keyboard are located within the designated
surface area. Ans. 12 (citing Elias H 27, 29, Fig. 1). Figure 1 of Elias is
illustrative and is reproduced below:
KEYBOARD
100
N
MOTION
SENSITIVE
AREA
Figure 1 of Elias illustrates a “motion sensitive mechanical keyboard 100
having mechanical keys 110 and motion sensitive area 120 spanning all of
keys 110 except for the bottom-most row.” Elias 123. Further, Elias
discloses, when in the mouse mode, the user’s other hand (i.e., not the hand
used for pointing or gesturing on the touch surface) can hold down a number
of keys to initiate various operations. Elias 128. Elias describes example
10
Appeal 2016-004320
Application 13/726,523
operations as a mouse left-click, right click, or click-hold and drag
operations. Elias 128. The Examiner finds Elias’ discloses the keys to be
held down, and thereby causing the identified operations to execute, may be
“dedicated” or “arbitrary.” Ans. 12 (citing Elias 27, 29). Elias describes
the arbitrary keys as “any of the specified number of keys on keyboard
100—or in any region of keyboard 100—can effect the designated
operation.” Elias 129. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Elias teaches,
or reasonably suggests, pressing a key within a designated touch sensing
surface area and another key outside a designated touch sensing surface area
at the same time to convey a secondary click operation.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 and, for
similar reasons, of claim 18, which recites a similar limitation.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6, 9—15, and 18.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7, 8, 16, and 17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11