Ex Parte Miyazaki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2017

12755946 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 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.
1946-0166 9651
EXAMINER
TAYLOR JR, DUANE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/755,946 04/07/2010
142241 7590 04/17/2017
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
Reiko MIYAZAKI
04/17/2017 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 REIKO MIYAZAKI
Appeal 2016-003061
Application 12/75 5,9461
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 8, 12—19, 21, 22, 26, and 29—31. (Reply Br. 2.)
Claims 9—11 and 23—25 have been indicated as allowable. (Answer 36.)
Claim 6, 20, 27, and 28 are cancelled. (Appeal Br. 26, 31, 33—34.)
We affirm and designate our affirmance as a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 Appellant identifies Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. (Appeal
Br. 3.)
Appeal 2016-003061
Application 12/755,946
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to the detection of an area of contact on
the touch panel surface of an information processing apparatus by an object
external to the device. A calculation is performed to determine (a) the angle
of contact of the object and (b) whether substantial movement has occurred
at the point of contact, and if the angle changes but no substantial movement
has occurred, the device determines that a change in angle of inclination has
occurred. (Spec. Abstract, 7, 22—23.)
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. Apparatus for detecting an inclination of a device, the
apparatus comprising:
a detector for determining a contact location on a surface
of the device at which an object external to the device currently
contacts the device;
a memory storing instructions for determining a change in
orientation of the object relative to the surface of the device,
determining a movement of the contact location upon the surface
of the device, and determining a change in inclination of the
device based on the determined change in orientation of the
object and the determined movement of the contact location; and
one or more processors for executing the instructions,
wherein the instructions include instructions for executing
an operation of the device when the determined change in
inclination of the device meets a predetermined criteria,
wherein when the orientation of the object is determined
to have changed and only when substantially no movement of the
contact location is determined to have occurred during the
change of orientation of the object, the change in inclination of
the device is determined to meet the predetermined criteria and
2
Appeal 2016-003061
Application 12/755,946
the one or more processors are controlled to execute the
instructions for executing the operation of the device, and
wherein the one or more processors are controlled so as
not to execute the instructions for executing the operation of the
device when the contact location is determined to have
substantially moved during the change of orientation of the
object.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15—17, 21, 22, 26, and
29—312 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bilow (US 2007
/0300182 Al; pub. Dec. 27, 2007), Nagata et al. (US 8,319,832 B2; iss. Nov.
27, 2012) (hereinafter “Nagata”), and Nurmi (US 2009/0167702 Al; pub.
July 2, 2009). (Final Action 5—30; Answer 3—25.)
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, 18, and 193 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bilow, Nagata, Nurmi, and Keam (US
2009/0085881 Al; pub. Apr. 2, 2009). (Final Action 30-40; Answer 25—
34.)
The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bilow, Nagata, Nurmi, and Tsuzaki et al. (US
2009/0122007 Al; pub. May 14, 2009) (hereinafter “Tsuzaki”). (Final
Action 30-40; Answer 25—34.)
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Bilow,
Nagata, and Nurmi teaches or suggests an apparatus which executes
2 Claims 9, 10, 23, and 24 were included in the Final Action rejection but
subsequently indicated as allowable. (Answer 36.)
3 Claims 11 and 25 were included in the Final Action rejection but
subsequently indicated as allowable. (Answer 36.)
3
Appeal 2016-003061
Application 12/755,946
instructions when the orientation of an object in contact with the device is
determined to have changed and substantially no movement of the contact
location is determined to have occurred during the change of orientation of
the object, and wherein processors are controlled so as not to execute the
instructions when the contact location is determined to have substantially
moved during the change of orientation of the object?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds in the Final Action that Nagata and Nurmi, in
combination with Bilow, teach or suggest the last two limitations of claim 1,
in which, when a change of orientation of an object in contact with a device
occurs, instructions are executed if substantially no movement of the contact
location is determined to have occurred, but where the instructions are not
executed if the contact location is determined to have substantially moved.
(Final Action 8—10.) In the Answer the Examiner finds that Nagata, in
combination with Bilow, teaches these limitations. (Answer 6—7.)
Appellant argues that the cited portions of Nagata do not teach the
claim limitations as found by the Examiner, as the portions of Nagata cited
by the Examiner do not show a change in orientation of a finger, but rather
show three separate examples of different approach angles of a finger to a
device. (Appeal Br. 15, citing Nagata, col. 9,11. 41—63, Figs. 13A—13C;
Reply Br. 5—6.) Appellant argues that the cited portions of Nurmi teach only
moving a stylus to contact a device, and activating a functionality based on
the angle at which the stylus enters the screen area, and thus do not teach or
suggest detecting a change in orientation in the stylus. (Appeal Br. 17—18,
citing Nurmi | 68.) We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of
Nagata and Nurmi do not teach or suggest the limitations.
4
Appeal 2016-003061
Application 12/755,946
However, Nurmi discloses an interaction method in which “[different
functions can be activated based on the stylus angle (angle between stylus
and screen)” (Nurmi 149) and that “[detecting a change in the angle of the
pointing device . . . can be used to select an operation and/or perform an
operation” {id. 1 50.) Nurmi specifically discloses:
Real time changing of the stylus angle (as opposed to
merely a static sensing at one instance) can also be sensed and
used. There are lots of possible actions and functions that can
be done or activated by sensing the changing of the stylus
angle. For example, a user can place the stylus to a certain
part of a screen and then change the angle of stylus while
keeping the point of the stylus at the same place on the
screen. This can, for example, be used to change music volume
for instance. A user can put the stylus on top of volume icon
and change the stylus angle towards the right to increase
volume or change the stylus angle towards the left to decrease
volume. As another example, this same type of stylus
movement could be used to change color or shade or sharpness
in a picture. Change of stylus angle can also be used for
scrolling content, drawing different items to the screen, to input
text by changing the angle to select different characters
(perhaps similar to a joystick movement).
{Id. 1 58, emphasis added.) Nurmi specifically contrasts this change in
stylus angle during a time in which the contact point remains at the same
place with “[ajnother type of movement” in which both the angle of the
stylus and the location of the contact point change at the same time, and
teaches that this could be sensed and used to trigger alternate functionality.
{Id. 1 59.) These portions of Nurmi, not cited by the Examiner, in
combination with the cited portions of Bilow, Nagata, and Nurmi, teach or
suggest the disputed limitations.
Thus, with respect to claim 1, having considered the Examiner’s
rejections in light of the Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record,
5
Appeal 2016-003061
Application 12/755,946
we conclude that claim 1 is unpatentable over Bilow, Nagata, and Nurmi.
Because we base our conclusion in part on a portion of Nurmi which was not
cited by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance of the Examiner’s
rejection as a new ground of rejection to ensure that Appellant have a fair
opportunity to respond.
With regard to claims 2—5, 7, 8, 12—19, 21, 22, 26, and 29—31,
Appellant either does not separately contest the Examiner’s rejections or
presents an argument based solely on the argument with respect to claim 1
(Appeal Br. 20-23), and therefore we find these claims unpatentable on the
same grounds as claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7, 8, 12—19,
21, 22, 26, and 29—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable.
Because the fact finding and reasoning relied on by the Board to
sustain the rejections of the claims differs from the facts and reasoning relied
on by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance of the modified rejection
of these claims as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION so as to provide
Appellant with a full and fair opportunity to respond to the thrust of the
rejections.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
6
Appeal 2016-003061
Application 12/755,946
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
Examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to
the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking
any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
37 C.F.R, 41.50(b)
7