Ex Parte Robinson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

14276020 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/276,020 05/13/2014
109808 7590 03/22/2018
LENOVO/P ANGRLE
Pangrle Patent, Brand & Design Law, P.C.
3500 W Olive Ave
3rd Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Douglas Warren Robinson
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.
RPS920130262-US-NP 3002
EXAMINER
MISHLER, ROBIN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2018 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):
brian@ppbdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOUGLAS WARREN ROBINSON
Appeal2017-008691
Application 14/276,020 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-17, and 21-23, which are all of the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Technology
The application relates to "a tactile panel ... for rendering of braille
representations of letters, numbers, symbols, etc." Spec. i-f 17.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Lenovo Singapore Pte.
Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008691
Application 14/276,020
Illustrative Claims
Claims 1 and 21 are illustrative and reproduced below with the
limitations at issue emphasized:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a processor;
memory operatively coupled to the processor;
a touch-sensitive display operatively coupled to the
processor;
a tactile braille panel operatively coupled to the processor
wherein the tactile braille panel overlays at least a portion of the
touch-sensitive display; and
braille rendering circuitry that, in a braille mode, renders
braille characters to the tactile braille panel, that receives touch
input for sensed touches of the rendered braille characters, that
determines a touch rate based at least in part on the touch input,
and that controls a rendering rate of braille characters to the
tactile braille panel based at least in part on the determined
touch rate.
21. An apparatus comprising:
a processor;
memory operatively coupled to the processor;
a touch-sensitive display operatively coupled to the
processor;
a tactile braille panel operatively coupled to the processor
wherein the tactile braille panel overlays at least a portion of the
touch-sensitive display; and
a sensor operatively coupled to eye-tracking circuitry that
associates eye position instability with visual impairment due to
loss of vision.
2
Appeal2017-008691
Application 14/276,020
Rejections
Claims 1--4 and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination ofDagar (US 2012/0299853 Al; Nov. 29,
2012) and White et al. (US 2014/0281950 Al; Sept. 18, 2014). Final Act. 2.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination ofDagar, White, and Kim (US 2014/0085221 Al;
Mar. 27, 2014). See Final Act. 4.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Dagar, White, and Dahan et al. (US 2006/0009243
Al; Jan. 12, 2006). Final Act. 5.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination ofDagar, White, and Harrison (US 2008/0150911 Al; June 26,
2008). Final Act. 6.
Claims 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Dagar and Riley et al. (US 2015/0314681 Al; Nov.
5, 2015). Final Act. 6.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination ofDagar, Riley, and Do et al. (US 2009/0259688 Al; Oct. 15,
2009). Final Act. 7.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding White teaches or suggests
"braille rendering circuitry that, in a braille mode, renders braille characters
to the tactile braille panel, that receives touch input for sensed touches of the
rendered braille characters, that determines a touch rate based at least in part
on the touch input, and that controls a rendering rate of braille characters to
3
Appeal2017-008691
Application 14/276,020
the tactile braille panel based at least in part on the determined touch rate,"
as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Riley teaches or suggests "eye-
tracking circuitry that associates eye position instability with visual
impairment due to loss of vision," as recited in claim 21?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9
Claim 1 recites "braille rendering circuitry" that (1) "renders braille
characters to the tactile braille panel"; (2) "receives touch input for sensed
touches of the rendered braille characters"; (3) "determines a touch rate
based at least in part on the touch input"; and (4) "controls a rendering rate
of braille characters to the tactile braille panel based at least in part on the
determined touch rate."
The Examiner relies on White for teaching or suggesting these
limitations. Final Act. 2-3. White discloses a graphical user interface that
can both display text visually and provide haptic feedback to output a Braille
character. White Abstract. In particular, "the device can detect a contact
over the text on the haptic display; associate a cursor position with the
contact location; and output, at the contact location, a Braille character
corresponding to a character at the cursor position in the text." Id. i-f 35.
Moreover, "the output Braille character changes as the contact moves across
the text." Id.
Appellant argues "White is a touch then render approach while the
subject matter of claim 1 is directed to a render then touch approach." App.
Br. 11. For example, Appellant argues claim 1 requires receiving touch
input for "the rendered braille characters," which means the rendering must
4
Appeal2017-008691
Application 14/276,020
happen before the touch. Id. Yet we agree with the Examiner that White
also discloses touching after rendering, specifically touching the Braille
character after it is rendered. Ans. 2; White i-fi-f 182-185, Figs. 5A-E.
Moreover, touching left or right of the Braille character results in the next
character being rendered (and subsequently touched). Ans. 2; White
i-fi-f 184--185, Figs. 5C-E. Although Appellant argues "only a single braille
character" is rendered at one time in White (see App. Br. 7), we note that
nothing in claim 1 requires rendering multiple Braille characters at the same
time. Thus, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding White
teaches or suggests "braille rendering circuitry that, in a braille mode,
renders braille characters to the tactile braille panel, [and] that receives touch
input for sensed touches of the rendered braille characters."
Appellant further argues that "[i]n properly considering White as a
whole, the term 'rate' does not appear" and "[t]he two instances of the term
'speed' ... are not linked to the braille loupe of White." App. Br. 12 (some
emphasis omitted). Although we agree with the Examiner that in White the
speed of finger movement will change the speed at which the next braille
letter is output (Ans. 2), this at best entails a user determining a touch rate,
whereas claim 1 requires "braille rendering circuitry ... that determines a
touch rate." There is no evidence of White's circuitry determining a rate
rather than merely changing the display whenever the user touches a new
character, no matter how much or how little time has passed. Thus, the
Examiner has not shown White teaches or suggests "braille rendering
circuitry ... that determines a touch rate based at least in part on the touch
input, and that controls a rendering rate of braille characters to the tactile
braille panel based at least in part on the determined touch rate."
5
Appeal2017-008691
Application 14/276,020
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of
independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2---6, 8, and 9.
Claims 12-17
Independent claim 12 recites, "A method comprising: ... determining
a touch rate based on receiving touch input for sensed touches of at least
some of the rendered braille characters."
Similar to claim 1, the Examiner has not shown that White teaches or
suggests determining a touch rate based on receiving touch input. As
discussed above, White teaches a computer changing the braille display
based on receiving touch input, but the computer does not determine a touch
rate. Conversely, a user might determine a touch rate, but the Examiner has
not shown the user does so based on receiving touch input.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of
independent claim 12 and its dependent claims 13-17.
Claims 21-23
Independent claim 21 recites "eye-tracking circuitry that associates
eye position instability with visual impairment due to loss of vision."
Appellant argues "Riley is directed to temporary impairment of
sighted vehicle operators where that impairment is falling asleep or being
distracted; neither being evidence of eye position instability associated with
visual impairment due to loss of vision." App. Br. 17 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. We agree with the
Examiner that "temporary impairment is a type of visual impairment due to
loss of vision (e.g., ... droopy or closed eyes do not allow a user to properly
see ... )." Ans. 3. Nothing in the claim is limited to permanent impairment
6
Appeal2017-008691
Application 14/276,020
or permanent loss of vision. Riley also discloses using "eye scanning rate,
gaze fixation, ... or other cues" to determine "impairment of the vehicle
operator." Riley i-f 31. This is akin to the Specification's disclosure of
monitoring a user's "instability of gaze." Spec. i-f 57.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
claim 21 and its dependent claims 22 and 23, which Appellant argues are
patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 18-19; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-17, but we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 21-23.
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(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7