Ex Parte Patel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 9, 2018

13624564 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2018)

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.
13/624,564 09/21/2012 Navin Patel 100100.120348-01-US 4069
29153 7590 01/11/2018
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
311 S.WACKER DRIVE
Suite 4300
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
BOGALE, AMEN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/11/2018 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):
amddocketinternal@faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAVIN PATEL
Appeal 2017-007061
Application 13/624,5641
Technology Center 2600
Before IRVIN E. BRANCH, STACEY G. WHITE, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—5, 8, 10, 12—19, and 21—24, which are all of the claims pending in
the application. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Technology
According to Appellant, the application relates to “providing controls
for remotely operating a touchscreen using non-touchscreen type controls.”
Spec. 11.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is ATI Technologies
ULC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-007061
Application 13/624,564
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitation at
issue emphasized:
1. A method of interacting with a touch screen device
including:
displaying a pointer location indicator on a touch screen of
the touch screen device, the pointer location indicator operable
to move responsively to movement of a pointing device of a
second computing device, movement of the pointing device
being communicated to the touch screen device via the second
computing device;
receiving first input indicating that at least one keyboard
button is pressed[; and]
responsive to receiving the first input, causing the
touchscreen device to interpret non-multi-touch movement of the
pointing device as a multi-touch command.
References and Rejections2
Claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 21—24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hu (US
2013/0093683 Al; published Apr. 18, 2013) and Dizac (US 2013/0057472
Al; published Mar. 7, 2013). Ans. 2—16.
Claims 2, 13, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Hu, Dizac, and Romm (US
2009/0282099 Al; published Nov. 12,2009). Ans. 17-21.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hu, Dizac, and Yoo
(US 2011/0061020 Al; published Mar. 10,2011). Ans. 21-24.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action mailed Jan. 14,
2016 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed Sept. 13, 2016
(“App. Br.”); and (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed Jan. 3, 2017 (“Ans.”).
2
Appeal 2017-007061
Application 13/624,564
Claim 5 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hu, Dizac, Yoo, and Iesaka
(US 2003/0201982 Al; published Oct. 30, 2003). Ans. 2A-25.
Claim 18 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hu, Dizac, and Iesaka. Ans. 25—27.
Claims 14 and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hu, Dizac, Iesaka, and Yoo. Ans. 27—
30.
Claim 16 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hu, Dizac, and Clark
(US 2010/0121968 Al; published May, 13, 2010). Ans. 31-32.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred. We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions and concur with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions as explained below.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Hu discloses all limitations of claim 1 except that
Hu does not teach or suggest “responsive to receiving the first input, causing
the touchscreen device to interpret non-multi-touch movement of the
pointing device as a multi-touch command.” Ans. 2-4. For this limitation,
the Examiner cites Dizac’s disclosure that “the touch pad 444 can be
configured to execute a scroll function when a user performs a swipe gesture
on the touchpad 444, and a zoom function when the user performs a swipe
3
Appeal 2017-007061
Application 13/624,564
gesture in conjunction with depressing a key on a keyboard 130 or other
input device.” Dizac 145 (cited by Ans. 4—5).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because
“[cjoupling Hu with the ‘multi-touch system of Dizac’ would not provide
non-multi-touch input as claimed” and “[tjhere is no showing that Dizac is
treating an input as a multi-touch input to get an output (such as zooming) as
opposed to generating a work-around of some type that gets the output
(zooming).” App. Br. 14.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of error. Specifically,
we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Dizac’s “depressing a key on
a keyboard” (the first input) causes the touchscreen device to “interpret non-
multi-touch movement” (the “swipe gesture” which is “non-multi-touch
movement” (i.e., scroll) in the absence of the keyboard input) “as a multi-
touch command” (i.e., zoom). Ans. 4—5. Appellant’s contention that
“[cjoupling Hu with the ‘multi-touch system of Dizac’ would not provide
non-multi-touch input as claimed” amounts to a bald assertion supported
with insufficient persuasive argument or evidence to convince us the
assertion is true. App. Br. 14. Appellant’s argument that Dizac “just
provides a work around to get multi-touch-type results without actually
providing an indication of multi-touch input[, which] does not allow for the
testing of how a device responds to multi-touch input,” is unpersuasive
because the argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Id.
Claim 1 does not recite “providing an indication of multi-touch input.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
4
Appeal 2017-007061
Application 13/624,564
Claims 3 and 19
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites, in relevant part, “wherein
the change in appearance of the pointer location indicator is indicative of a
change in the effect of moving the pointing device.” The Examiner finds
“Hu in view of Dizac does not teach a first visual appearance and a second
visual appearance as claimed.” Ans. 22. The Examiner cites Yoo, which
discloses “[i]f the pointing cursor 832, 832' [] is moved from one of these
locations to another, at least one of the transparency, the shape, the
brightness and the color of the pointing cursor 832, 832' may be changed.”
Id. (citing Yoo 1126, Fig. 8B).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 3 on the basis
that Yoo “only shows a change in visual appearance that is linked to the
location of the pointer,” so the rejection lacks a finding that the “change in
functionality (change in effect of moving the pointing device)... is linked
to the change in appearance.” App. Br. 16—17.
In arguing error, Appellant acknowledges Yoo teaches “a first visual
appearance” and “a second visual appearance” {id. (Yoo “shows a change in
visual appearance”)), which is the only limitation the Examiner finds is
missing from the combination of Hu and Dizac (Ans. 22 (“Hu in view of
Dizac does not teach a first visual appearance and a second visual
appearance as claimed”)). Because Appellant does not dispute the
Examiner’s findings with respect to the combination of Hu and Dizac and
does not dispute the Examiner’s other findings and conclusion relative to the
combined teachings of the references, Appellant’s argument unpersuasively
attacks an individual reference when the rejection is based on what the
combined teachings of the references would have taught or suggested to one
5
Appeal 2017-007061
Application 13/624,564
of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejection of claim 3
and of claim 19, which Appellant argues on the same basis. See App. Br.
17.
Remaining Claims
We sustain the rejection of claims 8, 10, 12, 15,21, and 24 because
Appellant argues those claims based on Appellant’s claim 1 arguments. See
App. Br. 15—16. We also sustain the rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16—
18, 22, and 23, which Appellant argues based on their dependency from
other claims. Id. at 17.
DECISION
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1—5, 8, 10, 12—19, and 21—24.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6