Ex Parte WESTERMAN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2015

12422225 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/422,225 04/10/2009
69753 7590 12/17/2015
APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Wayne WESTERMAN
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.
106842608609
(P3950USC27)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6194
EXAMINER
SIM, MATTHEW Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2015 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)
TJJ\.HTED STi\TES Pi\TENT i\.ND TR .. A.DElVLA.RK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE WESTERMAN and JOHN G. ELIAS
Appeal2014-000022
Application 12/422,225
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1,2,6, 7, 15, 19,25-30,32,33,35--43,45,46,48-56,58,59,and
61--63. Final Act. 3-9. Claims 31, 34, 44, 47, 57, and 60 are objected to as
being dependent on a rejected claim. Final Act. 9. Claims 3-5, 8-14, 16-
18, and 20-24 have been cancelled. App. Br. 7-9. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Apple, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-000022
Application 12/422,225
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method for providing input to a
computing system using a touch sensitive display based on a change in the
proximity of a point of contact. Spec. i-fi-1242--47.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for providing input to a computing system
including a touch sensitive surface, the method comprising:
obtaining a sequence of proximity images of a set of one
or more contacts, wherein each of the contacts corresponds to a
touch object on or near the surface, the proximity images
including proximity information of each contact at different
times, wherein each contact appears in each of the proximity
images;
determining a first proximity of each contact based on a
first proximity image of the sequence of proximity images;
determining a second proximity of each contact based on
a second proximity image of the sequence of proximity images,
the second proximity image occurring after the first proximity
image;
calculating, based on the first and second proximities, a
proximity change of each of one or more of the contacts; and
providing, based on the one or more proximity changes,
input to the computing system.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Matzke
Miller
Ure
us 4,736,191
us 5,374,787
us 5,982,302
2
Apr. 5, 1988
Dec. 20, 1994
Nov. 9, 1999
Appeal2014-000022
Application 12/422,225
REJECTIONS
Claillls 1,2,6, 7, 15, 19,25,26,30,32,33,35-39,43,45,46,48-52,
56, 58, 59, and 61---63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ure in view of Miller. Final Act. 3-7.
Claillls 27-29, 40-42, and 53-55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ure in view of Miller and Matzke. Final
Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Exallliner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Exallliner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
argulllents.
The Exallliner finds Ure teaches "obtaining a sequence of illlages of a
set of one or lllore contacts" where each of the illlages is taken at a different
tillle. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Exallliner further finds Miller teaches
determining the proxilllity of a contact based on capacitance changes and
touch pressure information. Final Act. 4 (citing Miller 5: 1-5); see also Ans.
3--4. Based on those findings, the Exallliner concluded that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to colllbine Ure and
Miller and use the inforlllation to calculate the change in proxilllities:
Therefore, taking the colllbined teachings of Ure and
Miller, as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the idea of having
a proxilllity determining systelll for detecting touch position
and pressure as taught by Miller into the lllethod of determining
a first and second contact illlages as taught by Ure to obtain a
lllethod of teach deterlllining a first proxilllity of each contact
based on a first proxilllity illlage of the sequence of proxilllity
illlages; deterlllining a second proxilllity of each contact based
3
Appeal2014-000022
Application 12/422,225
on a second proximity image of the sequence of proximity
images, the second proximity image occurring after the first
proximity image; calculating, based on the first and second
proximities, a proximity change of each of one or more of the
contacts; and providing, based on the one or more proximity
changes, input to the computing system to allow touch pressure
detection for increased inputting options.
Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4--5.
Appellants argue Miller does not teach or suggest "calculating, based
on the first and second proximities, a proximity change of each of one or
more of the contacts," as required by claim 1. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2-3.
According to Appellants, the cited sections of Miller merely "teach
calculating position based on capacitance changes." App. Br. 5 (citing
Miller 5: 1-5); Reply Br. 3 (Miller teaches determining proximity only at a
single point in time). Accordingly, Appellants argue, "Miller fails to teach,
disclose, or suggest, as required by claim 1, 'calculating, based on the first
and second proximities; a proximity change of each of one or more of the
contacts."' App. Br. 5.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner's findings (Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 3-5),
which we agree with and adopt as our own, provide a "rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977,
4
Appeal2014-000022
Application 12/422,225
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int? Co. v. T'elej7ex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments, which are directed to Miller and not directed to the
combined teachings of the references that the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of claims 6 and 15, which are argued on the same grounds,
and claims 2, 7, 19, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 35-39, 43, 45, 46, 48-52, 56, 58, 59,
and 61---63, which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 4--5.
With respect to dependent claims 27-29, 40-42, and 53-55,
Appellants merely contend that because Matzke does not cure the
deficiencies in independent claims 1, 6, and 15, the claims are allowable for
the same reasons as the independent claim from which they depend. App.
Br. 5---6. Because we determine there are no deficiencies associated with the
independent claims, we also sustain the rejections of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7,
15, 19, 25-30, 32, 33, 35--43, 45, 46, 48-56, 58, 59, and 61---63 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
kis
5