Ex Parte MURATA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2018

13909811 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/909,811 06/04/2013
154930 7590 10/05/2018
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yu MURATA
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.
412700US8X SOMC 2848
EXAMINER
SHAH,SUJIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2018 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):
anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com
Arlene.Hudgens@Xsensus.com
Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU MURAT A 1
Appeal2017-000502
Application 13/909,811
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 through 20. Oral arguments were
heard on September 27, 2018. A transcript of the hearing will be added to
the record in due course. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-000502
Application 13/909,811
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to verifying and enforcing certificate use
in a network. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a touch panel display that displays an interface including
at least one of one or more character strings and one or more
images, the touch panel display including one or more sensors
for detecting an input operation by one or more instruction
objects on the touch panel display; and
circuitry configured to:
control the touch panel display such that an initial
selection range of the at least one of the one or more character
strings and the one or more images is displayed;
determine an initial coordinate corresponding to a
position on an operation surface of the touch panel display at
which the input operation is initially performed;
determine a speed at which the instruction object moves
on the operation surface during the input operation; and
selectively determine, based on a predetermined
condition of the input operation, a first mode and a second
mode of altering the displayed initial selection range, wherein
the initial selection range includes a starting point and an
end point that are displayed on the touch panel display,
the circuitry alters the initial selection range by
controlling the touch panel display such that, in response to the
detection of the input operation and based on the selectively
determined mode, at least one of the displayed starting point
and the displayed end point are moved at a predetermined speed
from their initial positions,
when the circuitry determines the initial selection range
is altered in accordance with the first mode, the circuitry
controls the touch panel display such that the predetermined
speed is different than the detected speed at which the
instruction object moves on the operation surface, and
when the circuitry determines the initial selection range
is altered in accordance with the second mode, the circuitry
2
Appeal2017-000502
Application 13/909,811
controls the touch panel display such that the predetermined
speed is substantially the same as the detected speed at which
the instruction object moves on the operation surface.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 12, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Westerman et al. (US
2009/0228842 Al; pub 1. Sept. 10, 2009) ("Westerman"), Tilda (US
2010/0231529 Al; publ. Sept. 16, 2010), and Matsuyama (US
2013/0070145 Al; publ. Mar. 21, 2013). Answer4. 2
The Examiner has rejected claims 5 and 13 through 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Westerman, Tikka, Matsuyama,
and Van Eerd (US 2013/0113718 Al; publ. May 9, 2013). Answer 4.
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Westerman, Tilda, Matsuyama, and Murrett et
al. (US 2012/0311507 Al; publ. Dec. 6, 2012) ("Murrett"). Answer 4.
The Examiner has rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Westerman, Tikka, Matsuyama, and Choi et al. (US
2012/0242582 Al; publ. Sept. 27, 2012) ("Choi"). Answer 4.
The Examiner has rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Westerman, Tikka, Matsuyama, Choi, and Pachikov et al.
(US 2013/0212463 Al; publ. Aug. 15, 2013) ("Pachikov"). Answer 5.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed February 3,
2016 (hereinafter "App. Br."), the Reply Brief, filed October 12, 2016
(hereinafter "Reply Br."), the Final Office Action, mailed August 4, 2015
(hereinafter "Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer, mailed August 23,
2016 (hereinafter "Answer").
3
Appeal2017-000502
Application 13/909,811
The Examiner has rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Westerman, Tilda, Matsuyama, and Hsieh et al. (US
2007/0146335 Al; publ. June 28, 2007) ("Hsieh"). Answer 5.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments. We agree with Appellant's
contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues on pages 6 through 10 of the Answer, that the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 is in error.
Appellant argues that the combination of Westerman, Tilda, and Matsuyama
does not teach the section speed is different than the speed of the user input
as claimed. App. Br. 7-8. Further, Appellant argues that the combination of
the references does not teach determining based on a condition of the input
operation, a first or second mode of altering the display as claimed. App.
Br. 9.
The Examiner relies upon Tilda to teach the limitation directed to the
section speed. Answer 7. The Examiner cites to Westerman Figure 3 and
the accompanying description as teaching the selection of text by selecting
endpoints and moving endpoints. Answer 7. The Examiner cites to Tilda
Figures 2A through 2D as also teaching selecting text, and finds the
embodiments disclose different variants of modifying the selection range.
Answer 8. Further, the Examiner finds that Tilda teaches in Figure 5E and
4
Appeal2017-000502
Application 13/909,811
the accompanying text, that the speed of the user input can be determined in
a swipe input. Answer 8.
Appellant's arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
rejection. The determination of speed of the input taught by Tilda is
disclosed as used in conjunction with a zoom or pan control of a view. See
Tikka paras. 78, 79. We concur with the Appellant, these "operations are
performed in a manner that is commensurate with a speed of the received
input and not different than the detected speed at which the instruction
object moves on the operation surface, as required by independent claim 1."
Reply Br. 2 ( emphases omitted). The Examiner has not shown, nor do we
find, that Tikka teaches that detected speed and speed at which the
instruction object is moved is different, as recited in each of independent
claims 1, 19, and 20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
5