Ex Parte Kasahara et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2017

13212531 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 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.
13/212,531 08/18/2011 Shunichi KASAHARA 1946-0045 6433
142241 7590 07/26/2017
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
EXAMINER
LEE, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2017 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 SHUNICHI KASAHARA, RITSUKO KANO, and
TOMOYA NARITA1
Appeal 2017-002260
Application 13/212,531
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-16, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002260
Application 13/212,531
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to a touch panel that detects the
presence of multiple objects within a proximity of the panel. Spec. 1-2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
a position information acquisition portion configured to
acquire position information about an operating body relative to
a display surface of a display portion; and
a display control portion configured such that if said
operating body is positioned inside a proximate region between
said display surface and a position withdrawn from said display
surface by a predetermined distance, said display control
portion displays an object in a position on said display portion
which corresponds to said operating body,
wherein said display control portion redisplays said
object in subsequent positions corresponding to positions inside
said proximate region to which said operating body moves,
wherein said position information acquisition portion is
capable of acquiring the position information about a plurality
of operating bodies,
based on the position information about a first operating
body positioned inside said proximate region, said display
control portion first displays said object in that position on said
display portion which corresponds to said first operating body,
and
if a second operating body is positioned inside said
proximate region with said object being displayed on said
display portion, said display control portion displays part of
said object in that position on said display portion which
corresponds to said second operating body, based on the
position information about said second operating body, and
wherein the position information acquisition portion and
the display control portion are each implemented via at least
2
Appeal 2017-002260
Application 13/212,531
one processor.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 5-11, 13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Miemik (US 8,373,669 B2; Feb. 12, 2013),
Kolmykov-Zotov et al. (US 2006/0214926 Al; Sept. 28, 2006), Sands et al.
(US 2010/0302155 Al; Dec. 2, 2010), and Furuhata et al. (US 5,943,043;
Aug. 24, 1999). Final Act. 3-15.
The Examiner adds Perlin et al. (US 2009/0256817 Al; Oct. 15, 2009)
to reject claim 2 (Final Act. 16-17), Paquette et al. (US 2009/0303256 Al;
Dec. 10, 2009) to reject claim 3 (Final Act. 17-18), Pelletier et al. (US
2008/0253609 Al; Oct. 16, 2008) to reject claim 12 (Final Act. 18-19), and
Ylivainio et al. (US 2009/0012959 Al; Jan. 8, 2009) to reject claim 14
(Final Act. 20).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Claim 1
Appellants argue the cited combination fails to teach or suggest “if a
second operating body is positioned inside said proximate region with said
object being displayed on said display portion, said display control portion
3
Appeal 2017-002260
Application 13/212,531
displays part of said object in that position on said display portion which
corresponds to said second operating body, based on the position
information about said second operating body,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 16-21; Reply Br. 5-7. Specifically, Appellants argue Sands
teaches displaying a split keyboard in response to detecting two hands being
placed on a touch input device. App. Br. 18 (citing Sands 117). Appellants
argue Sands “does not teach or suggest that the displayed object has already
been displayed at a position corresponding to the first operating body when
the second operating body is then detected, and subsequent to the detection
of the second operating body, the part of the object is displayed at a position
corresponding to the second operating body.” App. Br. 19. According to
Appellants, Sands does not display any of the split keyboard prior to both
hands being detected, and if one hand is detected a virtual input device
different than the split keyboard is displayed. Id.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. First,
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim
1 does not recite “the displayed object has already been displayed at a
position corresponding to the first operating body when the second operating
body is then detected,” as argued by Appellants. Instead, claim 1 recites
“based on the position information about a first operating body positioned
inside said proximate region, said display control portion first displays said
object in that position on said display portion which corresponds to said first
operating body.” Claim 1 further recites “if a second operating body is
positioned inside said proximate region with said object being displayed on
said display portion, said display control portion displays part of said object.
99
4
Appeal 2017-002260
Application 13/212,531
The latter limitation does not recite a temporal component requiring
the detection of the second body to be after detection of the first body.
Instead, the second operating body could be detected at or around the same
time as the first operating body as long as the second operating body is
“positioned inside said proximate region with said object being displayed on
said display portion.” Accordingly, Appellants’ argument that Sands fails to
teach displaying a portion of the split keyboard after first displaying the
entire keyboard is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Second, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Sands teaches displaying a
dynamically created keyboard that is split between the user’s hand locations.
Ans. 6 (citing Sands 117). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Sands
teaches the display of the virtual input device (e.g., keyboard) changes based
on physical characteristics associated with the user. Id. For example, the
size of the virtual input device may vary depending on the size of the user’s
hands. Sands 130. We agree with the Examiner that Sands at least suggests
to an ordinarily skilled artisan that a keyboard may be displayed beneath a
user’s single hand (see Sands Fig. 4), and that this display may change based
on the detection of a second hand, such that the keyboard may be split
between the two hands, as taught by Sands 17, 36. Further, an ordinarily
skilled artisan would understand that Sands’s detection of two hands is not
necessarily precisely simultaneous; there may be a slight delay between the
detection of one hand and the other when Sands detects the two hands. In
other words, the second hand may be after the first hand. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Sands and Furuhata, which
teaches performing an action in response to a first contact and a second
5
Appeal 2017-002260
Application 13/212,531
contact within a predetermined time (Furuhata 3:1-26), at least suggests the
disputed limitations.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the rejection of independent claims 5, 8, and 9, and dependent claims
6, 7, and 10-16, for which Appellants offered no separate argument. See
App. Br. 20.
Claim 2
Appellants argue Perlin fails to cure the deficiencies of Miemik,
Kolmykow-Zotov, Sands, and Furuhata with regard to claim 2. App. Br.
21-23. In particular, Appellants argue Perlin teaches the mere detection of
when a stylus is lifted from a screen, instead of detection of when a stylus is
moved out of a proximate region of a screen by a predetermined distance.
App. Br. 22.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error with regard to
claim 2. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Perlin teaches ceasing to
display an object when an operating body (a stylus) is no longer detected on
a screen. Ans. 9 (citing Perlin 1172). Miemik and Kolmykov-Zotov teach
detecting the presence of an operating body when it is within a
predetermined distance of a screen. Ans. 9. Appellants’ argument focuses
on the disclosure of Perlin while ignoring the disclosures of Miemik and
Kolmykov-Zotov. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner explained that the
combination of Perlin’s teaching of cessation of display when an object is no
6
Appeal 2017-002260
Application 13/212,531
longer detected with Miemik, and Kolmykov-Zotov’s detection of an
operating body within a predetermined distance teaches this limitation, not
Perlin alone. Ans. 9. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3
Appellants argue Paquette fails to cure the deficiencies of Miemik,
Kolmykow-Zotov, Sands, and Fumhata with regard to claim 3. App. Br.
23-25. In particular, Appellants argue Paquette teaches whether a cursor is
in idle mode, instead of determining whether an operating body leaves a
proximate region and then is again positioned inside the proximate region
before a predetermined period elapses. App. Br. 24.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error with regard to
claim 3. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Paquette teaches hysteresis, the
concept of requiring absence of a condition for more than a predetermined
time, with respect to a cursor. Ans. 10-11. The Examiner cites the base
combination for the remainder of claim 3, including detecting an operating
body based on its position inside a proximate region. Id. Appellants’
argument focuses on the disclosure of Paquette while ignoring the
disclosures of Miemik, Kolmykov-Zotov, Sands, and Fumhata. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc.,
800 F.2d at 1097; see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The Examiner
explained that the combination of Paquette’s hysteresis and the base
combination’s detection of an operating body within a proximate distance
teaches this limitation, not Paquette alone. Ans. 10-11. Accordingly, we
7
Appeal 2017-002260
Application 13/212,531
are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of
claim 3.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3 and 5-16.
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
8