Ex Parte Senanayake et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2018

13399210 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/399,210 02/17/2012
14824 7590 10/25/2018
Moser Taboada/ SRI International
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rukman Senanayake
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.
SRI6434-2 9974
EXAMINER
JANSEN II, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2018 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUKMAN SENANAY AKE, GRIT DENKER, PATRICK D.
LINCOLN, JOHN MURRAY, and STEVENS. WEINER1
Appeal2018-004321
Application 13/399,210
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-11, 13-22, and 25-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The Appellants identify SRI International as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004321
Application 13/399,210
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. An electronic system facilitating interaction of a user
with one or more software applications running on the
electronic system, the electronic system comprising:
an input device comprising a plurality of input elements,
each of the plurality of input elements being manipulatable by
one or more user-controllable objects to interact with the one or
more software applications;
a processor coupled to the plurality of input elements and
configured to determine a physical configuration of input
elements specific to selectable choices of an active software
application and control at least some of the plurality of input
elements to assume the physical configuration;
a plurality of sensors configured to sense data indicative
of a physical relationship of the one or more objects in relation
to the plurality of input elements; and
a display, provided remote to the plurality of input
elements, the display being configured to visually depict a
representation of the physical configuration of the plurality of
input elements as the selectable choices of the active software
application including a visual depiction of the plurality of input
elements being sensed based on the sensed data indicative of
the physical relationship of the objects to the configuration of
the plurality of input elements;
wherein one or more of the sensors are co-located with
one or more of the plurality of input elements.
Rejections
Claims 1-11, 13-18, 21, 22, and 25-33 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Yun (US 2011/0234502 Al,
published Sept. 29, 2011) in view of Cheung (US 5,736,976, issued Apr. 7,
1998).
2
Appeal2018-004321
Application 13/399,210
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Yun and Cheung, as applied to claim 18, and further
in view of Vartanian (US 2012/0050200 Al, published Mar. 1, 2012).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. To the extent consistent
with the analysis below, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. Ans. 3-11. We highlight and address specific
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend that the combination of Yun and Cheung does not
teach "a processor coupled to the plurality of input elements and configured
to determine a physical configuration of input elements specific to selectable
choices of an active software application and control at least some of the
plurality of input elements to assume the physical configuration" and
a display, provided remote to the plurality of input elements,
the display being configured to visually depict a representation
of the physical configuration of the plurality of input elements
as the selectable choices of the active software application
including a visual depiction of the plurality of input elements
being sensed based on the sensed data indicative of the physical
relationship of the objects to the configuration of the plurality
of input elements
(hereinafter "the disputed limitations"), as recited in independent claim 1,
and similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 22. App. Br. 18-23.
3
Appeal2018-004321
Application 13/399,210
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Yun teaches the configuration of a
device based on a program aspect of the invention. Ans. 4--5.
Regarding Appellants' contentions about the claimed "selectable
choices," we note that the features which Appellants have argued (App.
Br. 15, 17), are not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted
in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read
into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Figures 2 and 3 of Yun
teach the "selectable choices" claimed terms. In particular, Figure 2 of Yun
shows keys configured as directional input keys 221 to 224; whereas Figure
3 of Yun shows keys configured as cursor control keys 311, 322, 323, and
324, and as alpha/numerical input keys O through 9.
The Examiner also finds that Yun teaches the claimed remote
implementation (Fig. 58, paragraphs 156, 157, 178). See Ans. 6-7.
As to Cheung, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Figure 1 of Cheung
teaches the visual display claim element. See Ans. 8.
We have considered Appellants' Reply Brief, but find it unpersuasive
in rebutting the Examiner's responses because Appellants rely on description
in the Specification that is not recited in the claims. We are not persuaded
the Examiner has erred because Appellants merely provide conclusory
remarks that Yun' s and Cheung' s teachings are different from what is
claimed. Reply Br. 2-12. It is well settled that mere attorney's arguments
and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Attorney
argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
4
Appeal2018-004321
Application 13/399,210
1974). Nor can such argument take the place of evidence lacking in the
record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
Thus, we find Appellants' contention that the applied art of record
lacks the disputed limitations unavailing given Yun's and Cheung's above-
noted disclosure.
Regarding dependent claims 19 and 20, although Appellants raised
additional arguments for patentability of the cited claims (App. Br. 15-16),
we find that the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer those arguments by a
preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 10-11. Therefore, we adopt the
Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated
herein by reference.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting the remaining claims
based on arguments similar to those provided for their respective base
claims. For the reasons previously described above, these arguments do not
persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting the remaining claims.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-
11, 13-22, and 25-33 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 1-11, 13-22, and
25-33.
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
5