Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

13816675 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/816,675 04/12/2013 Genqing Wu 16113-1868US1 7490
26192 7590 11/01/2017
FTSH fr RTfTTARnSON P C EXAMINER
PO BOX 1022 HARRIS, DOROTHY H
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GENQING WU and HUA SU
Appeal 2017-006685
Application 13/816,675
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-006685
Application 13/816,675
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 7—16, 19, 21—25, and 28. App. Br. 7.2 Claims 2—6, 17,
18, 20, 26, and 27 have been canceled.3 Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention interprets input on a touchscreen display.
Spec. 13. One embodiment can determine how the user is holding a
touchscreen mobile device and can use this information to identify a
particular finger touching the device. Id. ^ 3, 56. Touch input can then be
interpreted based on the identified finger. Id. ^ 4. For example, the system
can run a different application based on whether the user touched an icon
with a thumb or index finger. Id. Similarly, other embodiments adjust the
accepted input position based on the detected finger. Id.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by a mobile computing device, a position of
the mobile computing device with respect to one or more hands
of a user based on information that was obtained from an
orientation and motion sensor;
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Google, Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”)
mailed May 27, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed December 9,
2016, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed January 26, 2017, and (4)
the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed March 24, 2017.
3 Claims 4—6, 26, and 27 were canceled in an amendment entered after the
final action. Amendment After-Final, filed July 27, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-006685
Application 13/816,675
receiving, at the mobile computing device, a first input that
indicates that a user touched a touchscreen display of the mobile
computing device with a pointer;
identifying that the pointer is a particular finger or type of
finger of the user based upon, at least, the position of the mobile
computing device with respect to the one or more hands of the
user, which was determined by the mobile computing device
based on information obtained from the orientation and motion
sensor; and
interpreting the received first input on the touchscreen
display of the mobile computing device using the identified
finger or type of finger,
wherein determining the position of the mobile computing
device with respect to the one or more hands of the user
comprises determining that the user is holding the mobile
computing device in both of the user’s hands based on the
information that was obtained from the orientation and motion
sensor.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Singh
Matusis
Ling Su et al.
Ooi et al.
Brisebois et al.
Tsuda
Zdralek
Rigazio et al.
Parivar
US 6,256,021 B1
US 2003/0048260 Al
US 2006/0190836 Al
US 2009/0287999 Al
US 2010/0134423 Al
US 2010/0265204 Al
US 2011/0163956 Al
US 2011/0043475 Al
US 2012/0032891 Al
July 3, 2001
Mar. 13, 2003
Aug. 24, 2006
Nov. 19, 2009
June 3, 2010
Oct. 21,2010
July 7, 2011
Feb. 24, 2011
Feb. 9, 2012
Claims 1,21, 22, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Parivar. Final Act. 3—15.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parivar and Brisebois. Final Act. 15—18.
3
Appeal 2017-006685
Application 13/816,675
Claims 7—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Parivar and Ooi. Final Act. 18—20.
Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Parivar, Ooi, and Zdralek. Final Act. 20-22.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Parivar, Ooi, Zdralek, and Rigazio. Final Act. 23.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Parivar and Matusis. Final Act. 23—24.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Parivar and Singh. Final Act. 25—29.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Parivar and Tsuda. Final Act. 29-30.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Parivar and Ling Su. Final Act. 31—32.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PARIVAR
Claims 1 and 25
The Examiner finds that Parivar teaches or suggests every limitation
recited in independent claims 1 and 25. Final Act. 3—6. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Parivar determines the user is holding the mobile device
in both hands based on an orientation-and-motion sensor. Ans. 2—3. In the
Examiner’s view, Parivar’s accelerometer corresponds to the recited
orientation-and-motion sensor. Final Act. 3, 9—10, 14. According to the
Examiner, Parivar combines the information from an accelerometer and a
touch-sensitive surface to determine the mobile device’s position. Ans. 2—3.
4
Appeal 2017-006685
Application 13/816,675
Appellants argue that Parivar does not use accelerometer data to
detect the user’s hands. App. Br. 8—10. According to Appellants, Parivar
uses a touch-sensitive surface, not the accelerometer, to detect the user’s
hands. Id. at 9.
Appellants’ arguments (id. at 8—10) raise the issue of whether the
Examiner erred in finding that Parivar teaches or suggests “determining that
the user is holding the mobile computing device in both of the user’s hands
based on the information that was obtained from the orientation and motion
sensor.” We are persuaded that the Examiner did err in this regard.
We emphasize that, by the claim’s plain language, the limitation at
issue does not merely call for determining the position of the device. See
Ans. 2 (discussing “sensing a position”). Rather, the limitation at issue
requires determining the position of the user’s hands—i.e., (1) determining
whether both hands are holding the device and (2) basing this determination
on information from an orientation-and-motion sensor.4 The orientation-
and-motion sensor “can be any of a variety of sensors that are capable of
providing such measurements, such as gyroscopes, accelerometers,
compasses, global positioning system (GPS) units, etc.” Spec. 1 50.
In the rejection, the Examiner finds that Parivar’s accelerometer
corresponds to the recited orientation-and-motion sensor. Final Act. 3, 5, 7,
4 Appellants introduced these limitations from dependent claim 27 in an
amendment entered by the Examiner after the final action. See Amendment
After-Final, filed July 27, 2016. Although the language was added to the
independent claims from the limitations previously presented in canceled
dependent claim 27, the Examiner explained that the rationale for rejecting
the limitations presented in the final action still applies to these amended
claims. See Adv. Act. 2.
5
Appeal 2017-006685
Application 13/816,675
9—10, 14; Adv. Act. 2. To be sure, Parivar determines when contact is from
both hands. See, e.g., Parivar H 190, 206, Fig. 6B, step 618. But we see
insufficient support for the Examiner’s conclusion that Parivar teaches or
suggests doing so with data from the accelerometer. Ans. 2—3.
Parivar uses accelerometer data to determine the device’s orientation.
See, e.g., Parivar 1215. The orientation determines whether the device will
display the data in landscape or portrait view, for example. Id. 1 56. To
detect contact, however, Parivar uses the data from touch-sensitive surface
114 and display 112. See id. 149. For instance, Parivar’s device analyzes
contact, or a pattern of contact, from 114 and 112. Id. H 49, 184. In one
embodiment, the device determines whether two hands are holding the
device based on the distribution of the detected contacts. Id. 1190, cited in
Ans. 2. On this record, we agree with Appellants that Parivar teaches using
a touch-sensitive surface, not the accelerometer, to detect the user’s hands.
App. Br. 9.
Lastly, although Parivar can determine the device’s orientation in
accordance with the orientation of the user’s hand (Parivar 1215, cited in
Ans. 2), we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that
Parivar teaches or suggests determining that both hands are holding the
device from either of these orientations. See Reply Br. 1—2.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 25. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 21 and 22 for similar reasons.
6
Appeal 2017-006685
Application 13/816,675
Claim 28
Claim 28 recites, in part, “determining that the user is not holding the
mobile computing device based on the information that was obtained from
the orientation and motion sensor.”
Regarding claim 28, the Examiner finds that Parivar teaches “when
none of the touch sensitive surfaces detect a user’s palms and/or fingers
holding the device, then the device is not being held by a user.” Ans. 3
(emphasis added). But claim 28 requires basing the recited determination on
information from an orientation-and-motion sensor, which the Examiner
maps to Parivar’s accelerometer. Final Act. 15. For reasons similar to those
discussed above, we agree with Appellants that Parivar does not teach or
suggest using the accelerometer to detect the user’s hands, or specifically,
the absence of the user’s hands holding the device. See App. Br. 10-11.
The Examiner further concludes that one of ordinary skill could have
combined the signals of the accelerometer with the touch sensitive surface
for determining the device’s orientation in accordance with the orientation of
a user’s hand. Ans. 3. The Examiner’s reasoning, however, is conclusory.
See id. “[Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417—18 (2007).
Moreover, it is not apparent why one of ordinary skill would need to make
such a modification because Parivar’s device already determines whether
two hands are holding the device based on the distribution of the detected
contacts. Parivar 1190; accord App. Br. 11. We decline to speculate in this
regard for the first time on appeal.
7
Appeal 2017-006685
Application 13/816,675
The Examiner then notes that Appellants disclose a similar technique.
Ans. 3^4 (citing Spec. Tflf 56, 66—74). According to the Examiner, the
Specification does not disclose determining that the user is not holding the
device using only5 the motion-and-orientation sensors. Ans. 4. To the
extent that the Examiner is suggesting that the Specification lacks sufficient
written description support for the limitation,6 such a rejection is not before
us. In the obviousness rejection at issue here, the Examiner has not shown
the recited determination as claimed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 28.
THE REJECTION OVER PARIVAR AND SINGH
The Examiner rejects claim 19 as obvious over Parivar and Singh.
Final Act. 25—29. Appellants do not provide a substantive argument for the
patentability of claim 19. App. Br. 5, n.l. We review the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in
light of the produced arguments and evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). In the absence of such an argument,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. See Frye, 94 USPQ2d at
1075—76 (explaining that if Appellants fail “to present arguments on a
particular issue—or, more broadly, on a particular rejection—the Board will
not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.”); see also MPEP § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015)
5 Appellants note, and we agree, the claim is not limited to using only data
from the motion-and-orientation sensor. Reply Br. 3.
6 Appellants introduced the limitations from independent claim 1 to
dependent claim 28 in an amendment entered by the Examiner after the final
action. See Amendment After-Final, filed July 27, 2016.
8
Appeal 2017-006685
Application 13/816,675
(“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the
appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of
rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it.”).
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 7—16, 23, and 24 as being obvious over
Parivar, and various combinations of Matusis, Ling Su, Ooi, Brisebois,
Tsuda, Zdralek, and Rigazio. Final Act. 15—24, 29-32. Because the
additional references are not relied upon to teach the limitation missing from
Parivar, the additional references do not cure the deficiency discussed above.
See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims
7—16, 23, and 24 for the same reasons discussed above in connection with
claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 7—16, 21—25, and
28.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19.
DECISION
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 7—16, 19,
21—25, and 28.
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-IN-PART
9