Ex Parte Suzuki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

13436037 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/436,037 03/30/2012 Seiji SUZUKI
142241 7590 03/30/2018
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
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.
1946-0387 9813
EXAMINER
AZAR!, SEPEHR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEIJI SUZUKI, TAKURO NODA, and IKUO YAMANO
Appeal2017-009488
Application 13/436,037
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1--4, 8, 11-14, and 17-20. Claims 5-7,
9, 10, 15, and 16 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-009488
Application 13/436,037
INVENTION
The present invention relates to a multi-input device that rectifies
concurrent respective inputs. Spec. i-fi-13---6.
The independent claims on appeal are claims 1 and 12-14. Claim 1 is
reproduced, below, with emphasis added.
1. An apparatus comprising:
a processing unit configured to:
receive input data corresponding to operating
member inputs from a plurality of input units; and
analyze the input data to determine one or
more manipulation inputs corresponding to
respective executable processes; and
an execution unit configured to:
select one of the manipulation inputs based
on priorities assigned to the input units; and
issue a command for executing a desired
process according to the selected manipulation
input,
wherein the execution unit is configured to pause a
first process corresponding to input data received from a
first input unit, execute a second process corresponding to
input data received from a second input unit, based on the
priorities assigned to the first and second input unit,
wherein the execution unit resumes execution of the
first process when the processing unit continuously
receives input data from the first input unit after receipt of
input data corresponding to input from the second input
unit is stopped, and
wherein the processing unit, the execution unit, and
the input units are each implemented via at least one
processor.
2
Appeal2017-009488
Application 13/436,037
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
(Final Act. 3--4.) 1
Claims 1--4, 8, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ganey (US 2010/0156675 Al; June 24, 2010) and Ohuchi
(US 2010/0177218 Al; July 15, 2010). (Final Act. 5-12.)
Claim 11 stands rejected under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ganey,
Ohuchi, and Fu (US 2006/0250351 Al; Nov. 9, 2006). (Final Act. 13-14.)
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ganey, Ohuchi, and Lindberg (US 2009/0033617 Al; Feb. 5, 2009). (Final
Act. 14--15.)
Claims 17 and 20 stand rejected under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ganey, Ohuchi, and Westerman (US 2008/0036743 Al; Feb. 14, 2008).
(Final Act. 15-17.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants 'After-Final Amendment
Initially, we note that Appellants challenge the Examiner's refusal to
enter an amendment after final for claims 1 and 12-14. (App. Br. 7.)
Decisions within the Examiner's discretion, such as whether or not to enter
an amendment after final rejection, are reviewed only by way of petition, not
appeal. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984--85 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
1 Appellants do not present any arguments with respect to the rejection of
claims 1 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Thus, any such
arguments are deemed to be waived and we summarily sustain the
Examiner's rejection.
3
Appeal2017-009488
Application 13/436,037
(Examiner's refusal to enter amendment after final may be the subject of a
petition, but may not be reviewed by the Board); 37 C.F.R. § 1.127 ("From
the refusal of the primary examiner to admit an amendment, in whole or in
part, a petition will lie to the Director under§ 1.181."). Because the
Examiner's refusal to enter an amendment after final is a petitionable, rather
an appealable matter, this issue is not before us and we express no opinion as
to its propriety.
§ 103 Rejection-Ganey and Ohuchi
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 15-16; see
also Reply Br. 5---6) that the combination of Ganey and Ohuchi would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations
"wherein the execution unit is configured to pause a first process
corresponding to input data received" and "resumes execution of the first
process when the processing unit continuously receives input data from the
first input unit after receipt of input data corresponding to input from the
second input unit is stopped."
The Examiner found that the electronic device of Ganey, having
multiple input devices (e.g., pen and touch pad), in which one input device is
prioritized over another input device, corresponds to the limitations
"wherein the execution unit is configured to pause a first process
corresponding to input data received" and "resumes execution of the first
process when the processing unit continuously receives input data from the
first input unit after receipt of input data corresponding to input from the
second input unit is stopped." (Final Act. 5---6.) In particular, the Examiner
found that "the process of reception of the first input data (being low
4
Appeal2017-009488
Application 13/436,037
priority) is paused while the process of reception of the second input data (of
high priority) is performed according to the priority schemes." (Id. at 6
(emphasis omitted).) We agree with the Examiner's findings.
Ganey "relates to preventing inadvertent inputs by a user when
utilizing an electronic device having more than one user-input device" (i-f l ),
for example, a personal computer having a mouse a touch pad (i-f 2). In one
embodiment, Ganey explains that "if a stylus/pen type input is detected by a
digitizer, then other simultaneously occurring inputs, specifically inputs
coming from a touchpad and/or buttons located adjacent to the digitizer ...
are deemed errant and deactivated (rendered ineffective at performing the
input indicated)" and "[t]hese deactivated input devices are reactivated (have
their functionalities restored) when the stylus/pen is not detected by the
digitizer for a predetermined time." (i-f 22.) Figure 4 of Ganey illustrates a
flow chart for a prioritization scheme between two user-input devices, such
that "the electronic device (300) may automatically set a priority-input
device and affect the operability of the other user-input devices (e.g.
deactivate them) at ( 405) so as to filter out inputs provided through those
input devices." (i-f 43.) Moreover, Ganey explains the following:
At ( 407) the electronic device (300) continues to monitor user
input(s) from the priority user input device. At (408), upon not
detecting a user input from the priority user input device, the
electronic device (300) reverses the affect on the operability of
the other user input devices (e.g. reactivates the other user-input
devices).
(Id.) Thus, Figure 4 of Ganey encompasses a scenario in which the user of
the electronic device sequentially: (i) operates the other user-input device;
(ii) operates the priority device (i.e., step (407)), resulting in the deactivation
of the other user-input device (i.e., step (405)); and (iii) resumes operation of
5
Appeal2017-009488
Application 13/436,037
the other user-input device (i.e., step (408)) after a temporary deactivation.
As such, Ganey teaches the limitations "wherein the execution unit is
configured to pause a first process corresponding to input data received" and
"resumes execution of the first process when the processing unit
continuously receives input data from the first input unit after receipt of
input data corresponding to input from the second input unit is stopped."
Appellants argue that "[p ]aragraph [0043] of Ganey ... merely
discusses detecting more than one user input and 'affect[ing] the operability
of the other user-input devices (e.g. deactivate them)"' and accordingly,
"Ganey only contemplates to completely deactivate such input devices" and
"such a [deactivation] in Ganey is not a pausing of a process, which can and
will then be resumed from the last point where the process has previously
been paused." (App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 5---6.) However, Appellants'
arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim
does not require pausing of a process, which can and will then be resumed
from the last point where the process has previously been paused. As
discussed previously, the limitation "pausing" is broad enough to encompass
the prioritization scheme of Ganey, in which the other user input device is
deactivated when the priority user input device is in use, followed by the
reactivation of the other user input device.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ganey and
Ohuchi would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitations "wherein the execution unit is configured to pause a first
process corresponding to input data received" and "resumes execution of the
first process when the processing unit continuously receives input data from
6
Appeal2017-009488
Application 13/436,037
the first input unit after receipt of input data corresponding to input from the
second input unit is stopped."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2--4 and 8 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this
claim. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2--4 and 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.
Independent claims 12-14 recite limitations commensurate in scope to
those of independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain
the rejection of claims 12-14 for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Ganey, Ohuchi, and Fu
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 11 separately (App. Br. 17-18), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim
are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that "Ganey in view of
Ohuchi fails to teach or suggest every element of independent claim 1 upon
which claim 11 depends" and "Fu fails to remedy the deficiencies of Ganey
in view of Ohuchi." (Id. at 18.) We are not persuaded by these arguments
for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 11
depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
7
Appeal2017-009488
Application 13/436,037
§ 103 Rejection-Ganey, Ohuchi, and Lindberg
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 18 and 19 separately (App. Br. 19-20), the arguments presented do
not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these
dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that
"Ganey in view of Ohuchi fails to teach or suggest every element of
independent claim 1 upon which claims 18 and 19 depend" and "Lindberg
fails to remedy the deficiencies of Ganey in view of Ohuchi." (Id. at 19.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 1, from which claims 18 and 19 depend. Accordingly, we
sustain this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection-Ganey, Ohuchi, and Westerman
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 17 and 20 separately (App. Br. 20-21 ), the arguments presented do
not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these
dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that
"Ganey in view of Ohuchi fails to teach or suggest every element of
independent claim 1 upon which claims 17 and 20 depend" and "Westerman
fails to remedy the deficiencies of Ganey in view of Ohuchi." (Id. at 20.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 1, from which claims 17 and 20 depend. Accordingly, we
sustain this rejection.
8
Appeal2017-009488
Application 13/436,037
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting of claims 1--4, 8, 11-14, and 17-20
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
9