James Trethewey et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2019

13687167 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2019)

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.
13/687,167 11/28/2012 James Trethewey P49081 8440
104333 7590 10/22/2019
International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C.
13231 Champion Forest Drive
Suite 410
Houston, TX 77069
EXAMINER
YODICHKAS, ANEETA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2019 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):
Intel_Docketing@iiplg.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES TRETHEWEY, CHARLIE CASE JR., and
JORGE MARTINEZ
____________________

Appeal 2018-007647
Application 13/687,167
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief 2, filed April 12, 2018 (“App. Br.”).
Appeal 2018-007647
Application 13/687,167

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns a system and method for transmitting
an input value from a stylus to a computing device. See Specification ¶¶ 8–9,
filed November 28, 2012 (“Spec.”). Claims 1, 16, and 30 are independent.
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed invention:
1. A method for transmitting an input value comprising:
detecting sensor data in a stylus;
detecting a gesture event with the stylus, wherein the
gesture event is a movement pattern of the stylus;
generating the input value based on the gesture event and
the sensor data, wherein the gesture event is altered based on the
sensor data; and
sending the input value from the stylus to a computing
device.
App. Br. 20.
REJECTIONS
Claims Basis Reference(s)
1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 21, 23,
24, 30, 32, 34, 35 § 102 Falkenburg
2
2–4, 17–20, 31 § 103(a) Falkenburg, Cao3
7, 22, 33 § 103(a) Falkenburg, Bohn4
10, 25, 36 § 103(a) Falkenburg, Kim5
11–14 § 103(a) Falkenburg, Kim, Napper6
15, 29 § 103(a) Falkenburg, Kyung7
26–28, 37 § 103(a) Falkenburg, Napper

2 Falkenburg et al. (US 2012/0331546 A1; December 27, 2012).
3 Cao et al. (US 2012/0206330 A1; August 16, 2012).
4 Bohn et al. (US 2012/0153026 A1; June 21, 2012).
5 Kim (US 2007/0139392 A1; June 21, 2007).
6 Napper et al. (US 2010/0079602 A1; April 1, 2010).
7 Kyung et al. (US 2009/0135164 A1; May 28, 2009).
Appeal 2018-007647
Application 13/687,167

3
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites “detecting a gesture event with the stylus, wherein the
gesture event is a movement pattern of the stylus” and “generating the input
value based on the gesture event and the sensor data, wherein the gesture
event is altered based on the sensor data.” App. Br. 20 (emphases added).
Independent claims 16 and 30 recite nearly identical limitations. See App.
Br. 22, 24–25.
Appellant contends that the portions of Falkenburg relied on by the
Examiner do not disclose the “generating” limitation recited in independent
claims 1, 16, and 30. See App. Br. 8–11; see also Reply Brief 3–5, filed July
16, 2018. Appellant argues that the cited portions of Falkenburg “describe[]
that a first measurement can indicate contact with a surface, a second
measurement can indicate motion, and together, both measurements can
indicate motion while in contact with a surface.” App. Br. 9. But according
to Appellant, nothing in Falkenburg describes “generat[ing] any
measurement by using the contact/proximity measurement to alter the
motion/orientation measurement, or by using the motion/orientation
measurement to alter the contact/proximity measurement.” App. Br. 9.
We find Appellant’s argument persuasive. The Examiner found that
Falkenburg discloses the disputed “generating” limitation because
Falkenburg allegedly describes a microcontroller (MCU) that
generates input data based on the measurements from
contact/proximity sensor (212), which is used to determine the
sensor data, and motion/orientation sensor (214), which is used
to determine the gesture event, and the determination of the
gesture event being altered is performed by MCU (222) based on
the measurements from the contact/proximity sensor (212) and
motion/orientation sensor (214).
Appeal 2018-007647
Application 13/687,167

4
Answer 14, mailed May 15, 2018 (emphasis added) (citing Falkenburg ¶ 34,
Fig. 2); see also Final Office Action 2–3, 13–14, mailed October 11, 2017.
The cited portions of Falkenburg do not provide adequate support for this
finding. The cited portions of Falkenburg disclose that the MCU can receive
a proximity measurement from a contact/proximity sensor and motion or
orientation measurements from a motion/orientation sensor and determine a
stylus’s “condition,” for example, that the stylus is moving on a surface. See
Falkenburg ¶ 34. But as argued by Appellant, the cited portions of
Falkenburg do not explicitly disclose that a “gesture event” (which the
claims recite is “a movement pattern of the stylus”) is altered by sensor data
or any other type of data. As a result, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 16, and 30. Because the Examiner’s
anticipation and obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2–15, 17–29,
and 31–37 do not remedy this deficiency, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of these claims.

Appeal 2018-007647
Application 13/687,167

5

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected Basis Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 8, 9,
16, 21, 23,
24, 30, 32,
34, 35
§ 102 Falkenburg
1, 5, 6, 8, 9,
16, 21, 23,
24, 30, 32,
34, 35
2–4, 17–20,
31 § 103(a)
Falkenburg,
Cao
2–4, 17–20,
31
7, 22, 33 § 103(a) Falkenburg, Bohn 7, 22, 33
10, 25, 36 § 103(a) Falkenburg, Kim 10, 25, 36
11–14 § 103(a) Falkenburg, Kim, Napper 11–14
15, 29 § 103(a) Falkenburg, Kyung 15, 29
26–28, 37 § 103(a) Falkenburg, Napper 26–28, 37
Overall
Outcome 1–37

REVERSED