Ex Parte Migos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2018

12337445 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/337,445 12/17/2008
69316 7590 09/28/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles J. Migos
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.
MSFT-01256USO
(325587-US
CONFIRMATION NO.
3670
EXAMINER
LUONG, ALAN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES J. MIGOS, NADA V M. NEUFELD,
GIONATA METTIFOGO, and AFSHAN A. KLEINHANZL 1
Appeal2018-001714
Application 12/337,445
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, BETH Z. SHAW, and JASON M.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
5, 10-12, 14--22, 24 and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-001714
Application 12/337,445
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to gesture-based electronic program
management system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of managing content, comprising:
displaying an electronic program guide on a first portion of a
display surface of a first computer;
automatically sensing an item adjacent to the first portion of
the display surface;
automatically detecting that a first gesture of a plurality of
different types of gestures is being performed by the item
adjacent to the first portion of the display surface that is
displaying the electronic program guide, including sensing
movement of the item adjacent to the display surface from an
image representing a content item in the electronic program
guide toward a real world position of a second computer off the
display surface, the second computer is different than and
physically separated from the first computer such that the first
computer is in communication with the second computer via a
network; and
in response to the detecting the first gesture, sending a
message from the first computer to the second computer via the
network to present the content item on the second computer.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yokoyama
Wilson
Wu
Westerman
US 2005/0174489 Al Aug. 11, 2005
US 2005/0226505 Al Oct. 13, 2005
US 2008/0098450 Al Apr. 24, 2008
US 2008/0168403 Al July 10, 2008
2
Appeal2018-001714
Application 12/337,445
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Wilson
and further in view of Yokoyama.
Claims 3-5, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wu in view of Wilson and further in view of
Yokoyama and further in view of Westerman.
OPINION
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments
Appellants failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Appellants argue that Wu in view of Wilson and Yokoyama do not
teach or suggest the limitation of
sensing movement of the item adjacent to the display surface
from an image representing a content item in the electronic
program guide toward a real world position of a second computer
off the display surface . . . sending a message from the first
computer to the second computer via the network to present the
content item on the second computer
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9.
Appellants in particular argue that Yokoyama teaches the use of
gestures (horizontal or vertical swipe) in relation to the orientations of the
3
Appeal2018-001714
Application 12/337,445
touch panel 121 of the transportable display unit 100. App. Br. 9-11.
According to Appellants, the direction of the gestures has nothing to do with
the location of base station 200, transportable display unit 100, or large
screen television 300. App. Br. 10-11.
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. During prosecution,
claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading
claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Yokoyama
teaches a throw command assigned to a gesture that when detected switches
the reception of the real-world large-screen display unit 300 to the reception
channel of the transportable display unit 100. See Ans. 6-8; Yokoyama ,r,r
153-159. This finding is consistent with Appellants' Specification, which
states:
For example, looking back at Figure 6, the user can put the user's
hand over box 502 and then slide the hand very fast off display
surface 64a in the direction of a television ( or stereo or other
content presentation device). In response to that throwing
motion, computing system 20 will send a command to the
television to play the selected program.
Spec. ,r 73.
Furthermore, Figure 1 7 of Appellants' Specification shows the
different directions to be used for gestures for the throw command including
arrow 880 (see Spec. Fig.17, arrow 880) that is tantamount to the OPl
gesture direction of Yokoyama (see Fig. 5, arrow OPl). Thus, the throw
command gesture of Yokoyama from the transportable display unit 100
toward the large screen television 3 00 does meet the claim language of
sensing movement of the item adjacent to the display surface toward a real
4
Appeal2018-001714
Application 12/337,445
world position of a second computer off the display surface (i.e., sensing
throw gesture toward the television) and sending a message from the first
computer to the second computer via the network to present the content item
on the second computer (i.e., presenting the channel of transportable display
unit 100). We note that the Examiner relied on Wu for the selection of an
EPG channel on a remote device and display of that channel on a television
monitor (see Final Act. 5---6 and in particular ,r 71 of Wu). The test for
obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425
(CCPA 1981). Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-5, 10-12, 14--22, 24
and 25.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 10-12, 14--22, 24 and 25 is
affirmed.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
5
Appeal2018-001714
Application 12/337,445
AFFIRMED
6