Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

13965550 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/965,550 08/13/2013
68103 7590 03/21/2018
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gi-YongLEE
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.
0201-0705 9290
EXAMINER
SOTO LOPEZ, JOSE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2018 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte GI-YONG LEE
Appeal2017-009157
Application 13/965,550
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRUCE WINSOR, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-21, which constitute all claims pending in this application. 1 App.
Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse, and enter a new ground of rejection.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co.
Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009157
Application 13/965,550
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for measuring coordinates of a pen/stylus hovering on
the display of a smart device so as to determine whether a writing event is
completed. Spec. iJ 2. In particular, upon receiving an input from a user via
the user's body or an electromagnetic resonance (EMR) pen/stylus
designating a particular icon or issuing a specific command, the smart device
determines whether the pen/stylus is hovering above the surface of the smart
device at predetermined distance so as to determine a time point completion
of the user inputs, which are subsequently converted into characters data. Id.
iii! 12, 80, 81.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A control method of an apparatus for measuring coordinates of
an input by an input means, the control method comprising:
receiving a user input from the input means;
detecting an increase in a distance between the input means and
the apparatus for measuring the coordinates;
determining whether a hover event is completed based on the
distance between the input means and the apparatus for measuring the
coordinates; and
displaying a result of recognizing the user input as text when the
hover event is completed.
2
Appeal2017-009157
Application 13/965,550
Pennington, II
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2005/0099407 Al pub. May 12, 2005
Kohnykov-Zotov US 2006/0109252 Al pub. May 25, 2006
Teterwak us 5,768,616 pat. Jun. 16, 1998
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 6-11, and 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Pennington. Final Act. 4-10.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pennington and Kolmykov-Zotov. Final Act. 11-
16.
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pennington, Kolmykov-Zotov, and Teterwak. Final Act.
16-20.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant's arguments as they are presented in the
Appeal Brief, pages 4-8, and the Reply Brief, pages 2--4.2
Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Pennington describes
"determining whether a hover event is completed based on the distance
between the input means and the apparatus for measuring the coordinates,"
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 1 7, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
June 12, 2017), and the Answer (mailed April 20, 2017) ("Ans.") for the
respective details.
3
Appeal2017-009157
Application 13/965,550
as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 4-6. In particular, Appellant
argues Pennington is directed to invoking handwriting recognition upon
detecting the stylus has been lifted off the input surface for a predetermined
amount of time to determine the completion of a user input. Id. at 5 (citing
Pennington iii! 53, 70). According to Appellant, Pennington is drawn to
determining the end of a hover event based on the stylus being lifted off the
input surface for a predetermined period of time, whereas the claim
determines the end of the hover event based on the stylus being lifted a
particular distance from the surface. Id. at 6.
This argument is persuasive. We agree with Appellant that while
Pennington's disclosure of invoking handwriting recognition based on the
stylus being lifted off the input surface for a predetermined period of time
teaches invoking the handwriting recognition upon detecting a hover event
being completed, it does not teach the hover event being completed based on
a particular distance between the stylus and the detection surface.
(Pennington iJ 53). Thus, while we agree with the Examiner that the cited
Pennington's disclosure teaches distance and time as being factors in
invoking character recognition, it fails to teach the hover event being
completed based on the distance between the stylus and the input surface.
Ans. 19-20. In other words, in Pennington, the disclosed distance serves the
purpose of establishing the hover event, but fails to indicate the completion
thereof. Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection, we need not reach Appellant's remaining arguments.
Accordingly, we are persuaded or error in the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 1.
4
Appeal2017-009157
Application 13/965,550
Because claims 6-11, and 16-21 recite the disputed limitations
discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation of the cited
claims for the same reasons.
Obviousness Rejections
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-5, and 12-15, Appellant argues
that Kolmykov-Zotov does not cure the noted deficiencies of Pennington, as
discussed above. App. Br. 6-7. Because the Examiner does not rely upon
Kolmykov-Zotov to cure such deficiencies in Pennington, we are similarly
persuaded of Examiner error in the obviousness rejections.
New Ground of Rejection
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject claim
1 as being unpatentable over Pennington under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We find unpersuasive Appellant's argument that while paragraph 29
of Pennington discloses hovering, it does not teach the termination of a
hover event based on the distance between the stylus and the input surface.
Reply Br. 3 (citing Pennington ,-i 29). Instead, paragraph 29 of Pennington
discloses in relevant part "the computer may determine whether the tip of
the stylus is within a predetermined orthogonal distance from the input
surface. If so, then the stylus is hovering." In this case, because the
hovering event is determined by a particular distance between the stylus and
the input surface, paragraph 29 of Pennington teaches or suggests the
completion of a hover event when the stylus exits the predetermined
hovering distance. Because paragraph 29 of Pennington cures the noted
deficiencies of paragraph 53 of the same reference, it would have been
obvious to combine those two embodiments of Pennington to predictably
result in a system that invokes character recognition upon detecting the
5
Appeal2017-009157
Application 13/965,550
completion of a hover event based on the distance of the stylus to the input
surface, and alternatively based on the predetermined period of time.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not patentable.3
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21, as set forth
above. However, we have entered a new ground of rejection against claim 1
as being unpatentable over Pennington.
REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
3 The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is a review body rather than a place of
initial examination. We have rejected independent claim 1 under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). However, we have not reviewed the remaining claims 2-21 to
the extent necessary to determine whether these claims are unpatentable over
Pennington alone, and/or other prior art. We leave it to the Examiner to
determine the appropriateness of any further rejections based on these or
other references. Our decision not to enter a new ground of rejection for all
claims should not be considered as an indication regarding the
appropriateness of further rejection or allowance of the non-rejected claims.
6