Ex Parte Zotov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2014

11433643 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEXANDER J. ZOTOV, BRYAN D. SCOTT,
REED L. TOWNSEND, and STEVEN P. DODGE
____________

Appeal 2012-008426
Application 11/433,643
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1–9, 11–16, and 21–26. Claims 10 and 17–20 were canceled.
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2012-008426
Application 11/433,643

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to mapping touchscreen contacts to operations
performed on a computing device. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:1
1. In a computing system comprising a touchscreen device,
a computer-implemented method for performing an operation
on the computing system in response to input received from a
user of the touchscreen device, wherein the touchscreen device
includes an interactive display device, the method comprising:
receiving input from the user of the touchscreen device,
the input comprising multiple concurrent touchscreen contacts;
identifying one or more attributes of each of the multiple
concurrent touchscreen contacts;
identifying a first operation to perform in response to the
input;
performing the first operation;
receiving a spike gesture to activate a second operation,
wherein the spike gesture is comprised of a flick gesture in a
first direction followed by an immediate flick gesture in a
second direction without an interruption in detecting user
contact with the touchscreen device, the second direction being
substantially opposite of the first direction; and
in response to receiving the spike gesture, performing the
second operation on the computing system.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Wu et al.
(“Wu”)
US 2005/0052427 A1 Mar. 10, 2005

1 References to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) are directed to Appellants’
Appeal Brief filed Nov. 1, 2011, references to the Reply Brief (“Reply”) are
directed to Appellants’ Reply Brief filed Apr. 30, 2012, and references to the
Answer (“Ans.”) are directed to the Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 1,
2012.
Appeal 2012-008426
Application 11/433,643

3
Hotelling et al.
(“Hotelling-536”)
US 2006/0026536 A1 Feb. 2, 2006
Hotelling et al.
(“Hotelling-535”)
US 2006/0026535 A1 Feb. 2, 2006
Dehlin et al.
(“Dehlin”)
US 2006/0010400 A1 Jan. 12, 2006
Yasutake US 6,597,347 B1 July 22, 2003

The Examiner provides the following grounds of rejection, of which
Appellants seek review: claims 1–9, 11–16, and 21–26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Hotelling-536,
Hotelling-535, Dehlin, and Yasutake. Ans. 5–13.

ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9, 11–16,
and 21–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellants provide separate
arguments for claims 1, 7, and 25. App. Br. 10–22. Appellants’ arguments
present us with the following issues:
A. Did the Examiner err in finding that the teachings of
Yasutake can combine with the teachings of Dehlin in the
obviousness rejection of claim 1? App. Br. 12–15.
B. Did the Examiner err in finding that the teachings of the
cited art teach receiving a spike gesture as recited in
claim 1? Id. at 15–16.
C. Did the Examiner err in finding the teachings of the cited
art teach a “finger roll” as recited in claim 7? Id. at 17–
19.
Appeal 2012-008426
Application 11/433,643

4
D. Did the Examiner err in finding the teachings of the cited
art teach receiving a gesture including four fingers and a
thumb moving in a semi-circular path, and performing a
screen rotation, as recited in claim 25? Id. at 20–22.

ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and we have
reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that
the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response
to Appellants’ arguments. 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. We highlight the following arguments for
emphasis.

A. Combination of Dehlin and Yasutake
Appellants argue that combining the teachings of Yasutake with the
teachings of Dehlin will change the principle of operation, and otherwise
render inoperable, the system described in Dehlin. Particularly, Appellants
contend that adding the additional screens and fingers as described by
Yasutake, to the system of Dehlin, will not result in the “banana drawing
gesture to be performed as described in Dehlin.” App. Br. 14.
First, this mistakenly attributes the principle of operation of Dehlin to
be the drawing of a banana using a single finger on a single screen. This is
not correct, as the principle of operation of Dehlin “pertains to a method and
Appeal 2012-008426
Application 11/433,643

5
apparatus for detecting gestures made with a user's hands and fingers.”
Dehlin ¶ 1. Similarly, Yasutake “relates to the field of input control devices.
More specifically, it relates to force-sensitive input-control devices with
multiple surfaces.” Yasutake, col. 1, lines 24–26. As both references are
directed to input devices, it would be logical to combine, such as by adding
additional screens to the system of Dehlin based upon the multiple screen
system of Yasutake, in order to create a functional system for drawing and
manipulating (such as rotating) objects. Ans. 8.
Second, the Examiner cites the specific “banana gesture” of Dehlin
for showing that the “interactive display table can associate a library of
gestures.” Dehlin ¶ 71, cited in Ans. 14. Dehlin shows a gesture, the banana
gesture, which comprises multiple gesture segments in different directions.
Dehlin, Fig. 10A. Yasutake shows “the second direction being substantially
opposite of the first direction” to perform a computer operation, a “rotation
command.” Ans. 8. Appellants are selectively choosing among the
references’ various teachings by stating that the combination requires that
the “banana gesture” is made with two fingers, or with both “flick gestures”
being performed simultaneously. App. Br. 14–15. As articulated by the
Examiner, Dehlin discloses the flick gestures, and Yasutake shows that the
flicks can be “substantially opposite,” which can combine to generate and
rotate a banana image on a screen. Ans. 7–8. Therefore, we are not
persuaded of error in such a combination.
B. Spike Gesture
Appellants argue that neither the combination of Dehlin and Yasutake,
nor Dehlin alone, shows a spike gesture as claimed. App. Br. 15–16, Reply
Appeal 2012-008426
Application 11/433,643

6
5–8. As described above, Dehlin and Yasutake properly combine, with
Yasutake showing a computer receiving gestures in opposite directions to
perform an operation.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Dehlin alone
shows the gesture and timing of the spike gesture recited in claim 1. Ans. 7,
citing Dehlin, Fig. 10A, ¶ 71. Dehlin shows that a first gesture starts at the
ending point of a second gesture. That is, Dehlin shows a first flick (the end
of “a second gesture portion 1004b”) followed by a second flick (the
beginning of “a first gesture portion 1004a”). As can be seen in the
beginning or ending of either gesture portion in Fig. 10A (i.e., where the
drawings of the fingers are located), the gestures themselves have flattened
and become essentially straight lines in opposite directions.
Fig. 10A depicts a finger moving to form the gesture portions, and
Dehlin further explains that the disclosed system tracks the timing of
gestures (see Dehlin ¶¶ 83, 86), and the stroke order of a gesture (see Dehlin
¶ 90). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Dehlin shows receiving a flick
gesture followed by a flick gesture in the opposite direction.
Appellants contend that the Examiner is contradictory for citing
Dehlin and Yasutake. Reply 6. However, we are not persuaded the
Examiner has erred. Dehlin shows the claimed spike gesture, as determined
by the Examiner. Ans. 7. Dehlin and Yasutake properly combine for the
reasons stated above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.

C. Finger Roll
Appellants assert that Hotelling-536 only shows a generic description
of multipoint and segmented gestures, and fails to teach or suggest a finger
Appeal 2012-008426
Application 11/433,643

7
roll that comprises three or more fingers, as recited in claim 7. Reply 9. The
Examiner cites paragraph 61 of Hotelling-536, which describes gestures
performed in a series of steps and using multiple fingers. Ans. 9. Hotelling-
536 additionally shows a gesture using 3 fingers, and that fingers may be
added to a gesture while it is being performed. Hotelling-536 ¶¶ 66–67.
Appellants argue the teachings of Hotelling-536 by referring to various
additional passages and figures, such as a zooming sequence in Figs. 11C-
11H. Reply 10. These arguments do not address the full teachings of
Hotelling-536, including the multipoint gestures with three fingers described
herein. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error.

D. Screen Rotation
Appellants argue that Hotelling-536 does not show a gesture as recited
in claim 25, including receiving four fingers and a thumb, and performing a
screen rotation. App. Br. 20–21. Similar to the arguments that Appellants
provided for claim 7, Appellants contend that Hotelling-536 merely teaches
zooming and panning sequences. Reply 13.
We are not convinced the Examiner erred in citing to Hotelling-536.
The Examiner refers to Hotelling-536 for discussing multipoint gestures in
paragraph 61 and screen rotations in Figs. 15A–15C. Ans.17. Hotelling-536
further mentions creating a system that can identify four fingers and a thumb
being used for a gesture (see ¶¶ 11–12), and receiving a rotational gesture in
Figs. 6A–6F. As Hotelling-536 shows the claimed gesture and the claimed
operation, we concur with the Examiner’s findings.
Appellants further argue that the claimed gesture will reduce
computer error in identifying different types of gestures, by having
Appeal 2012-008426
Application 11/433,643

8
additional complexity, required by the four fingers and thumb limitations.
However, Appellants have not identified sufficient evidence to persuasively
rebut the Examiner’s contention that the cited references do not disclose
systems prone to gesture recognition errors. Therefore, we do not find any
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and adopting the findings and conclusions
of the Examiner, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
independent claims 1, 7, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Consequently,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection thereto. Because Appellants do not
substantively argue the patentability of the remaining claims, we group
claims 2–6, 14–16, 21, and 24 with claim 1, claims 8–9 and 22–23 with
claim 7, and claims 11–13 and 26 with claim 25. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the same reasons as discussed
with respect to claims 1, 7, and 25, respectively.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–9, 11–16, and 21–26
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

bar