Ex Parte Rothkopf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

11882881 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111882,881 08/06/2007
69753 7590 08/02/2016
APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Fletcher R. Rothkopf
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.
106842007801
(P5336USC1)
CONFIRMATION NO.
7147
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, DENNIS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
EOfficeLA@mofo.com
PatentDocket@mofo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FLETCHER R. ROTHKOPF and STEPHEN ZADESKY1
Appeal2015-001636
Application 11/882,881
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN,
and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 and 32--42, which are all the pending claims. 3 Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed November 25, 2013
("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed June 24, 2014 ("App. Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed September 24, 2014 ("Ans."); the
Appellants' Reply Brief filed November 18, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and the
Specification filed August 6, 2007 ("Spec.").
3 Claims 2-31 are cancelled. App. Br. 8.
Appeal2015-001636
Application 11/882,881
THE CLAHvIED INVENTION
According to the Specification, "[ t ]he present application relates to
input mechanisms, and more particularly, to sensing input through the use of
force and proximity sensors." Spec. i-f 1. Independent claim 1 is directed to
a method and independent claim 38 is directed to an apparatus. App. Br. 8-
9 (Claims Appendix). Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
switching operation of a sensor between a first operation
mode and a second operation mode, wherein,
when operating in the first operation mode, the
sensor provides a first output responsive to a force applied by an
object to an input area of a device, and
when operating in the second operation mode, the
sensor provides a second output responsive to a proximity of the
object to the input area of the device;
receiving a request to resize the input area of the device,
wherein the input area is part of a physical surface of the device;
and
in response to the received request, adjusting at least one
of a threshold amount of force and a threshold amount of
proximity for activating a pressed button state in the input area.
App. Br. 8 (disputed limitation highlighted).
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1and32--42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Serban et al. (US 2008/0018611 Al, published Jan. 24,
2008) ("Serban"); Wilson et al. (US 6,504,530 Bl, published Jan. 7, 2003)
("Wilson"); and Gillespie et al. (US 2006/0187214 Al, published Aug. 24,
2006) ("Gillespie"). Final Act. 3.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Appellants present the same arguments in support of all the claims.
App. Br. 3-7; Reply Br. 2-3. All the pending claims are subject to the same
2
Appeal2015-001636
Application 11/882,881
rejection. Final Act. 3. We decide this appeal as to all claims based on our
consideration of representative claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claim 1 in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. In reaching
our decision, we have considered all evidence cited by Appellants and all
arguments made by Appellants. We are not persuaded Appellants identify
reversible error. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings,
reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in the Final Office Action (Final Act.
2-14) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-8). We highlight the following
for emphasis.
Appellants argue the cited combination of references fails to teach or
suggest, "receiving a request to resize the input area of the device," as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants acknowledge,
in accordance with the description of the invention in the Specification, a
"resizing" includes changing the proximity threshold or the force threshold
of an input area. App. Br. 3. The Examiner cites column 5, lines 29-31, of
Wilson which states: "the information received from the first sensor can be
used to adjust the touch threshold of the second sensor." The cited passage
in Wilson teaches or suggests the second sensor receives a request from the
first sensor to adjust the touch threshold, and therefore, meets the disputed
claim language and supports the rejection made by the Examiner.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of the other
pending claims, which were not separately argued.
3
Appeal2015-001636
Application 11/882,881
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 32--42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4