Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 10, 2020

2019003472 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2020)

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.
14/643,505 03/10/2015 Russell Speight VanBlon RPS920140159-US-NP 5622
63203 7590 09/10/2020
ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
EXAMINER
TRAN, TAN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2020 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):
John@rogitz.com
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RUSSELL SPEIGHT VANBLON, JIANBANG ZHANG,
and JOHN WELDON NICHOLSON
________________

Appeal 2019-003472
Application 14/643,505
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN D. HAMANN, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17‒19, 21‒25, and 30‒33, which
are all the claims pending in this application.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lenovo
Singapore PTE. Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003472
Application 14/643,505

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to electronic devices that monitor the
user’s gaze along with input from an input device. Spec. 1. Claim 1
illustrates the appealed subject matter and read as follows:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor;
a sensor accessible to the at least one processor;
a display accessible to the at least one processor; and
storage accessible to the at least one processor and
bearing instructions executable by the at least one processor to:
receive first input from the sensor;
based on the first input, identify a location on the
display at which a user is looking;
receive second input from a first input device in
communication with the apparatus;
responsive to receipt of the second input and based
on the location on the display, execute a function at the
apparatus; and
present, on the display, a user interface (UI)
comprising a first selector element that is selectable to
enable the at least one processor to identify input from
the first input device as left click input to select a display
location at which the user is looking, the UI comprising a
second selector element that is selectable to enable the at
least one processor to identify input from the first input
device as right click input to select a display location at
which the user is looking.

Appeal 2019-003472
Application 14/643,505

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19, and 31‒33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez (US 2014/0204029 A1; July 24,
2014) and Customizing Mouse Buttons with Logitech Control Center
Software, http://support.logitech.com/en_us/article/26975 (2014) (last
viewed July 27, 2018) (“Logitech”). Final Act. 3‒10.
To the base combination of Lopez and Logitech, the Examiner adds
George-Svahn (US 2014/0247232 A1; Sept. 4, 2014) to reject claim 2 (see
Final Act. 10); Cieplinski (US 2015/0067560 A1; Mar. 5, 2015) to reject
claim 6 (see Final Act. 10‒11); Cederlund (US 2015/0130740 A1; May 14,
2015) and Greenberg (US 2015/0304251 A1; Oct. 22, 2015) to reject claim
11 (see Final Act. 11‒13); Hu (US 2010/0053082 A1; Mar. 4, 2010) to reject
claims 14 and 18 (see Final Act. 13‒14); Bellamy (US 2016/0128568 A1;
May 12, 2016) to reject claims 21 and 24 (see Final Act. 14‒16); DeLuca
(US 2013/0145304 A1; June 6, 2013) to reject claim 22 (see Final Act. 16);
Hu and Hennessey (US 2014/0184550 A1; July 3, 2014) to reject claim 23
(see Final Act. 16‒17); Um (US 2015/0067580 A1; Mar. 5, 2015) to reject
claim 25 (see Final Act. 17‒18); and Um and Pen Display, Software User’s
Manual, Version 1.0, Wacom (2008) (“Wacom”) to reject claim 30 (see
Final Act. 18).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Lopez and Logitech teaches or
suggests all of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3‒4. In particular, the
Examiner finds Lopez teaches all of the limitations except for the “present,
on the display, a user interface” limitation. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds
Logitech teaches this limitation and that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
Appeal 2019-003472
Application 14/643,505

4
have been motivated to combine Lopez and Logitech because the
modification “provides an intuitive user interface for users to customize”
either “their computer mouse” (id. at 4) or “the input apparatus” (Ans. 19).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because the Examiner’s rationale
for combining the references is insufficient. See Appeal Br. 5‒7; Reply
Br. 1‒3. In particular, Appellant argues the rationale merely restates an
alleged benefit of Logitech, ignoring the teachings of Lopez and how the
combination would modify Lopez. See Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues the
Examiner’s rationale amounts to nothing more than a statement that the
references could have been combined, rather than an explanation as to why
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
references. See id. at 5‒6.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Lopez teaches an
electronic device that monitors a user’s gaze, allowing the user to interact
with the user interface by looking at user interface elements. See, e.g., Lopez
¶ 15. Lopez teaches that in some embodiments, a left input portion and a
right input portion may be enabled to function as a left click and a right
click, respectively. Id. ¶ 34. The input portions may be any type of device
capable of receiving inputs from a user, such as touch sensors, physical
buttons, a mouse, a keyboard, etc. Id. ¶ 33. The input portions work in
conjunction with gaze detection to allow the user’s gaze to function as a left
click or right click. Id. ¶ 34.
Logitech teaches a software application that allows a user to reassign
different functions to the inputs of a mouse. Logitech 3. The Examiner finds
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
references to incorporate Logitech’s user interface into the teachings of
Appeal 2019-003472
Application 14/643,505

5
Lopez to “provide[] an intuitive user interface for users to customize” the
input apparatus. Ans. 19.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rationale is insufficient
to establish that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to
combine the teachings of the references. Lopez teaches gaze selection
functioning as a left click input when the user engages the left input portion.
Lopez ¶ 34. Lopez teaches gaze selection as a right click input when the user
engages the right input portion. Id. The Examiner fails to explain why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to replace this
functionality, which allows Lopez’s dual inputs to each work in conjunction
with the user’s gaze to customize gaze selection as either a left click or right
click (see id. ¶¶ 33‒34), with a software user interface that is selectable to
allow the input from the user’s gaze to function as either a left click or right
click. In short, the Examiner identifies a benefit of Logitech as it relates to
customizing mouse inputs without explaining why an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have been motivated to apply those teachings to gaze selection
at the expense of Lopez’s existing functionality that provides the same
benefit.
For these reasons, the Examiner fails to sufficiently establish that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of Lopez and Logitech in the manner proposed. We, therefore, do
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We
also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 15 and
19, which recite commensurate subject matter. We also do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 7, 9, 17, and 31‒33.
Appeal 2019-003472
Application 14/643,505

6
Claims 2, 6, 11, 14, 18, 21‒25, and 30 stand rejected as unpatentable
over the combination of Lopez, Logitech, and at least one additional
reference. The deficiency in the rejection of claim 1 also exists in these
obviousness rejections. We, therefore, do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of claims 2, 6, 11, 14, 18, 21‒25, and 30 for the same reasons.

SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 9,
15, 17,
19, 31‒33
103 Lopez, Logitech 1, 7, 9,
15, 17,
19, 31‒33
2 103 Lopez, Logitech, George-
Svahn
2
6 103 Lopez, Logitech,
Cieplinski
6
11 103 Lopez, Logitech,
Cederlund, Greenberg
11
14, 18 103 Lopez, Logitech, Hu 14, 18
21, 24 103 Lopez, Logitech, Bellamy 21, 24
22 103 Lopez, Logitech, DeLuca 22
23 103 Lopez, Logitech, Hu,
Hennessey
23
25 103 Lopez, Logitech, Um 25
30 103 Lopez, Logitech, Um,
Wacom
30
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 6, 7,
9, 11, 14,
15, 17‒
19, 21‒
25, 30‒33

Appeal 2019-003472
Application 14/643,505

7
REVERSED