Ex Parte Jitkoff

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

13300438 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/300,438 11/18/2011
79318 7590 08/01/2018
BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP
c/o CPA Global
900 Second A venue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Nicholas Jitkoff
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.
0058-648001 8017
EXAMINER
HUERTAS TORRES, AYESHAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
uspto@brakehughes.com
docketing@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN NICHOLAS JITKOFF 1
Appeal2017-011568
Application 13/300,43 8
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Google Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011568
Application 13/300,438
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to
A computer-implemented user input process for a
computing device includes receiving, on a touch pad surface over
a graphical display, a user input motion dragging across the touch
pad surface, identifying the dragging input motion as originating
off an edge of the touch pad by identifying a sensed first location
for the input motion at a peripheral edge of the touch pad surface,
and displaying on the graphical display a sliding graphical
element that is animated to move from the edge of the display
into a body of the display, over a non moving element on the
display, in response to identifying the dragging input motion.
Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows,
with the disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A computer-implemented user input process for a
computing device, the process comprising:
receiving, on a touch pad surface on a computing device,
a user input motion dragging across the touch pad surface, the
computing device having a graphical display;
identifying the dragging input motion as originating off an
edge of the touch pad by identifying a sensed first location for
the input motion at a peripheral edge of the touch pad surface and
by identifying that the dragging input motion had a positive
velocity upon entering the peripheral edge of the touch pad
surface;
based on the sensed first location for the input motion at
the peripheral edge of the touch pad surface and based on the
positive velocity of the input motion upon entering the peripheral
edge of the touch pad surface, distinguishing the user input
motion from a dragging user input motion across the touch pad
surface that causes movement of a pointer on the graphical
display; and
based on the user input motion being distinguished from a
dragging user input motion across the touch pad surface that
causes movement of a pointer on the graphical display,
2
Appeal 2017-011568
Application 13/300,438
displaying on the graphical display a sliding graphical element
that is animated to move from the edge of the display into a body
of the display, over a nonmoving element on the display, in
response to identifying the dragging input motion, wherein the
touch pad surface is separate from the surface of the graphical
display and wherein the movement of the sliding graphical
element is in coordination with the dragging input motion.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 14, 21-24, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Wilairat (US 2010/0302172 Al; pub. Dec. 2,
2010), Anzures (US 2011/0163969 Al; pub. July 7, 2011), and Chaudhri
(US 2009/0002335 Al; pub. Jan. 1, 2009). Final Act. 4--13.
The Examiner rejected claims 9-13, 15-20, 25-27 and 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wilairat, Anzures, Chaudhri, and Bronson
(US 5,305,435, issued Apr. 19, 1994). Final Act. 13-25.
ANALYSIS
THE REJECTION BASED ON WILAIRAT, ANZURES, AND CHAUDHRI
Claims 1-8, 14, 21-24, and 28
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-8, 14, 21-24, and 28.
Appellant asserts that Wilairat fails to teach "receiving, on a touch pad
surface on a computing device, a user input motion dragging across the
touch pad surface," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9. Namely, Appellant
maintains that Wilairat cannot teach this or anything about inputs on a touch
pad because Wilairat discloses a touch screen. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. As
such, according to Appellant,
3
Appeal 2017-011568
Application 13/300,438
Wilairat's touchscreen does not encounter the problem of
having a pointer that is moved in the display in response to a
corresponding user input motion on a touchpad and having to
distinguish that user input motion from a user input motion that
causes movement of a sliding graphical element from an edge of
the display into a body of the display.
The Office action recognizes some of the deficiencies of
Wilairat and relies on Anzures and Chaudhri to try to remedy
them, but the Examiner also glosses over a fundamental
deficiency of Wilairat, in that Wilairat does not disclose a
touchpad or any user input motions on a touchpad.
App. Br. 9.
We find this argument unpersuasive. As Appellant acknowledges, the
Examiner recognizes that Wilairat describes a touch screen and combines
Wilairat with Anzures and Chaudhri, each of which teach both touch screens
and touch pads. See, e.g., Final Act. 6-9; Ans. 5---6. For example, Anzures
describes using an exemplary user interface with a touch sensitive surface
that is separate from the display. Ans. 6; Anzures ,r,r 3 and 6 ( explaining
that in some embodiments the device has a touch pad and in some
embodiments the device has a touch-sensitive display); see also Chaudhri
,r 84 (noting that examples of touch sensing devices include touch pads,
touch screens, and touch sensitive housing).
Next, Appellant argues that none ofWilairat, Anzures, and Chaudhri
discloses
based on the sensed first location for the input motion at the
peripheral edge of the touch pad surface and based on the
positive velocity of the input motion upon entering the peripheral
edge of the touch pad surface, distinguishing the user input
motion from a dragging user input motion across the touch pad
surfaces that causes movement of a pointer on the graphical
display,
4
Appeal 2017-011568
Application 13/300,438
as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 10-14. Appellant, in particular, points out
that Chaudhri does not disclose a dragging motion of pointer or cursor. App.
Br. 10-11. Appellant also further explains that
Chaudhri has no reason to distinguish a user input motion on a
touch pad surface that originates off an edge of the touch pad
from a user input motion that causes movement of a pointer from
a user input motion that causes a sliding graphical element,
because Chaudhri never even discloses a user input motion that
causes movement of a pointer on a graphical display.
App. Br. 11. As such, according to Appellant, Chaudhri does not disclose
based on the sensed first location for the input motion at the
peripheral edge of the touch pad surface and based on the
positive velocity of the input motion upon entering the peripheral
edge of the touch pad surface, distinguishing the user input
motion from a dragging user input motion across the touch pad
surfaces that causes movement of a pointer on the graphical
display.
App. Br. 13.
The Examiner explains, though, that Chaudhri generally teaches
distinguishing different types of navigational inputs. Ans. 5. For example,
Chaudhri describes distinguishing different navigational inputs including
horizontal swipe/slide across the touch pad surface. Chaudhri ,r,r 172-173.
Chaudhri, as Appellant points out, also discloses cursors as part of the user
interface. App. Br. 10; Chaudhri i-fl 11; see also Anzures ,r 163 (teaching of
"movement of the cursor along the path of the swipe."). As such, Chaudhri
at least suggests that the dragging slide on a touch pad would cause
movement of the cursor. Chaudhri together with Wilairat and Anzures, then,
teach the disputed limitations.
Appellant further asserts that the Examiner has not sufficiently
supported the combination of Wilairat with Anzures and Chaudhri. App. Br.
5
Appeal 2017-011568
Application 13/300,438
14--17. In particular, Appellant alleges that the Examiner merely "alludes to
vague and general performance and design benefits" but the Examiner does
not offer support for these conclusory statements. App. Br. 6; see also
Reply Br. 5---6.
We disagree. As the Examiner explains, each of Wilairat, Anzures,
and Chaudhri are directed to analogous art relating to user interface inputs
on touch screens or touch pads. Final Act. 6-9. The Examiner reasons that
a skilled artisan would combine these references to "improve overall
operational performance of the device" and to "offer an enriched range[] of
input options available for a designer when designing a user interface."
Ans. 6. We are not persuaded of error with the Examiner's reasoning.
Moreover, "when a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no
more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
obvious." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417(2007).
As such, on this record, we find the Examiner has set forth sufficient
"articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8, 14,
21-24, and 28.
THE REJECTION BASED ON WILAIRAT, ANZURES, AND CHAUDHRI
Claims 9-13, 15-20, 25-27 and 29
As discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1, 14, and 21. Appellants do present any
separate arguments for the patentability of claims 9-13, 15-20, 25-27 and
6
Appeal 2017-011568
Application 13/300,438
29. As such, we are similarly not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 9--13, 15-20, 25-27 and 29.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7