Ex Parte Kelso et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

13944454 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/944,454 07/17/2013
58127 7590 07/30/2018
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott Edwards Kelso
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.
RPS920130047USNP(710.238) 5004
EXAMINER
RICKS, DONNA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2018 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 ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT EDWARDS KELSO,
TOBY JOHN BOWEN,
ROBERT A. BOWSER, and
MATTHEW LLOYD HAGENBUCH
Appeal 2017-010848
Application 13/944,454 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are the only claims pending. We have
jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affrrm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-010848
Application 13/944,454
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to synchronizing input surface data and display
screen refresh to improve user experience. Abstract, Spec. ,r,r 1--4, Figs. 3,
4. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal ( disputed limitation emphasized):
1. A method, comprising:
buffering, in a data buffer, a set of input data derived
from an input surface at substantially the beginning of a refresh
interval of the display screen;
associating the set of input data with a display frame
based on the refresh interval;
sequestering the set of input data in the data buff er per
display frame based on the refresh interval;
providing a new data buff er for a new set of input data
associated with a next display frame based on the refresh
interval; and
in response to a request from an operating system,
communicating the set of input data for the detected display
frame to the operating system.
App. Br. 19 (Claims App'x).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 19, and 20 are rejected2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US 2014/0232664 Al; pub August. 21,
2014) ("Henry") in view of Motta et al. (US 2014/0184517 Al; pub. July 3,
2014) ("Motta"), Matsui et al. (US 8,963,852 B2; iss. February 24, 2015)
("Matsui"), and Kim et al. (US 2007/0159467 Al pub. July 12, 2007)
("Kim"). Final Act. 3-16.
2 Rejection of claims 4, 14; 5, 15; and 8, 18 is set forth bythe Examiner at
pages 12-15 of the Final Action.
2
Appeal 2017-010848
Application 13/944,454
Claims 6 and 16 arerejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Henry, Motta, Matsui, Kim and, Shahpamia et al. (US
2014/0354555 Al; pub. December 4, 2014) ("Shahpamia"). Final Act, 15-
17.
Claims 7 and 17 arerejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Henry, Motta, Matsui, Kim, Shahpamia, and Schillings et
al. (US 2014/0204036 Al; pub. July 14, 2014) ("Schillings"). Final Act. 17.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in fmding the combination of the
cited references teaches the claim 1 limitation "in response to a request from
an operating system, communicating the set of input data for the detected
display frame to the operating system." App. Br. 7-15; Reply Br. 2--4.
According to Appellants, the Examiner relies on Motta, paragraph 17, for
this limitation, and Appellants argue Motta and the other cited references do
not teach the disputed limitation. Id.
Appellants argue "Motta never mentions or suggests 'in response to a
request from an operating system, communicate the set of input data for the
detected display frame to the operating system,' alone, not to mention the
import of these terms in the context claimed." App. Br. 16; see also Reply
Br. 16-19. Appellants additionally argue Motta is directed to a technique to
improve touch screen response by providing a "rapid response" followed by
a "fmal display representation." App. Br. 16 (citing Motta Title, Abstract).
According to Appellants, Motta's technique is different from Appellants'
3
Appeal 2017-010848
Application 13/944,454
teachings in the Specification, and the claims must be understood in view of
these teachings. Id. ( citing Spec. ,r,r 17, 18, 30, 31 ). Appellants note that:
Id.
Applicants' technique "permits sequestering of input data into
buffers, and subsequent release thereof to an OS, utilizing timing
information of the display screen's refresh." Specification at
[0030]. In one example, "an OS may be modified to
appropriately time requests such that input data buffered by an
input sub-system is appropriately synchronized with the display
screen refresh timing." Id. at [0031].
In the Answer, the Examiner refers to the Motta initial display
response which is superseded by the slower display and describes how the
operation of these responses employs the operating system to teach the
disputed limitation. Ans. 3--4 (citing Motta ,r,r 5, 15-17). Specifically, the
Examiner fmds:
When the user touches the touch screen, the reactive
interpretation unit provides an initial display representation of
the touch information. This initial fast path interaction for the
display from the rapid response display controller is considered
to be the triggering event that causes the request, from the
operating system, to provide the touch data. The initial display is
superseded by a display from the slower path of the routine
response display controller. This function is performed by
conveying the touch input to the application processor, where a
device driver (which is controlled by the operating system) sends
this touch information to the operating system. Thus, the touch
information (input data for the detected display frame) is
communicated to the operating system, in response to a request
from the operating system.
Id. at 3; see also Final Act. 8-9.
4
Appeal 2017-010848
Application 13/944,454
In the Reply Brief, Appellants repeat the arguments presented in the
Appeal Brief and do not directly address the Examiner's fmdings presented
in the Answer, supra. Reply Br. 16-19.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's fmdings that Motta teaches the disputed limitation. We
note the Examiner's fmdings are reasonable and not rebutted by Appellants
in the Appeal Brief or in the Reply Brief. Claim terms in a patent
application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While we interpret claims
broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not
import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 11 and 20 as these claims are argued together. See App.
Br. 14. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 as
these claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affrrm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
5
Appeal 2017-010848
Application 13/944,454
AFFIRMED
6