Ex Parte Liberty et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

13000889 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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.
13/000,889 03/09/2011 Matthew G. Liberty 0320-117 7248
113648 7590 01/18/2017
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404-7999
EXAMINER
KETEMA, BENYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2017 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW G. LIBERTY, BRYAN A. COOK, and
HUA SHENG
Appeal 2016-002380
Application 13/000,889
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12—14, 16, 17, 30—32, 34, and 107—113. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1, 18—29, and 35—106 have been
cancelled.2
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hillcrest Laboratories
Inc. (App. Br. 2).
2 The Examiner rejects claims 5, 8, 11, 15, and 33 as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but indicates these claims would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form. (Final Act. 18). This issue is not before us.
Appeal 2016-002380
Application 13/000,889
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
2. A method for mapping a device’s movement into cursor
position, comprising:
estimating at least one of said device’s linear position and
angular position;
processing at least one of said estimated linear position
and estimated angular position using both a first mapping
algorithm to generate a first cursor location and a second
mapping algorithm to generate a second cursor location; and
combining said first cursor location and said second
cursor location to generate a final cursor output;
wherein said first mapping algorithm is an absolute
pointing algorithm and wherein said second mapping algorithm
is a relative pointing algorithm.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 2—4, 6, 7, 30-32, 34, 107—109, and 111—113 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kerr (US 2008/0106517
Al; published May 8, 2008). (Final Act. 4—14).
Claims 9, 10, 12—14, 16, 17, and 110 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Kerr and Yoo (US 2007/0176899 Al;
published Aug. 2, 2007). (Final Act. 15—18).
ISSUES
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Kerr discloses
2
Appeal 2016-002380
Application 13/000,889
processing at least one of said estimated linear position and
estimated angular position using both a first mapping algorithm
to generate a first cursor location and a second mapping
algorithm to generate a second cursor location, and combining
said first cursor location and said second cursor location to
generate a final cursor output,
as recited in independent claim 2 and similarly recited in independent claims
3,6, 9, 30, 31, and 34?
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding Kerr discloses “an absolute
pointing algorithm which has a characteristic that a ratio of cursor motion to
angular device motion changes as a function of distance between said device
and a display on which a cursor is displayed,” as recited in independent
claim 3?
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding Kerr discloses “a direct,
repeatable mapping from device linear position and angular position into
cursor location and . . . cursor responsiveness to linear motion and angular
motion is consistent over a motion,” as recited in independent claim 6?
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding Kerr discloses “generat[ing]
cursor position as a sum of a term of linear position values and a term
computed from angular position that is independent of linear position,” as
recited in claim 7?
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err in finding Yoo teaches “the mapping
algorithms create[ ] an intermediate, spherical virtual display,” as recited in
claim 12?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kerr discloses
3
Appeal 2016-002380
Application 13/000,889
processing at least one of said estimated linear position and
estimated angular position using both a first mapping algorithm
to generate a first cursor location and a second mapping
algorithm to generate a second cursor location, and combining
said first cursor location and said second cursor location to
generate a final cursor output,
as recited in independent claim 2 and similarly recited in independent claims
3, 6, 9, 30, 31, and 34. (App. Br. 4—8; Reply Br. 1—2). Specifically,
Appellants argue the claimed first and second mapping algorithms “use the
x, y, and z axes” to generate first and second cursor positions, but “Kerr does
not disclose any ‘mapping algorithms’ as recited” by the claims because
Kerr does not use the z-axis for generating cursor position (App. Br. 7—8).
Appellants further argue Kerr’s z-axis position enlarges or reduces Kerr’s
cursor, but Kerr’s z-axis position does not “us[e] two different algorithms to
generate ‘a first cursor location’ and ‘a second cursor location’ which are
then combined to arrive at ‘a final cursor output.’” (Reply Br. 2; see App.
Br. 5-6).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 4), and we
agree, Kerr teaches a “[rjemote control system 10 [that] can permit a user to
move object 28 (e.g., a cursor) displayed on display 30 in the x- and y-axes
by pointing remote control 16 at desired locations on display 30” (Kerr
116). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Kerr’s system moves its
displayed cursor by combining the remote control’s “absolute position and
relative position.” (Ans. 2 (citing Kerr || 4, 30, 38); Final Act. 2, 5 (citing
Kerr 134)).
Appellants’ argument that the claimed mapping algorithms require
“us[ing] the x, y, and z axes” (App. Br. 7—8) is not commensurate with the
scope of the claims. The claims do not recite x-, y-, and z-axes positions are
4
Appeal 2016-002380
Application 13/000,889
used by the mapping algorithms, and the portions of the Specification to
which Appellants point describe “exemplary techniques” (App. Br. 7—8
(citing Spec. Tflf 44—53, Fig. 7); Spec. 144 (“exemplary techniques for
processing device motion into cursor movement as shown in Figure 7 will
now be considered”)). Accordingly, the absolute and relative positioning of
Kerr’s “remote control 16 in the x- and y-axes” which “correspond[ ] [to the]
movement of [cursor] object 28 in the x- and y-axes” (Kerr 116) are
mapping algorithms within the meaning of the claims. Additionally, to the
extent Appellants argue Kerr’s mapping is not an “algorithm” at all (see
App. Br. 7), we agree with the Examiner that Kerr “has to use an algorithm
to perform [its mapping] function[s]” because “an algorithm is a set of
instructions essential to the way computers process data” and Kerr is a
computer processing system (Ans. 3^4; Final Act. 3).
Further, Appellants’ argument that “there is no cursor change
calculated with respect to Kerr, and ... the absolute z-position of the remote
control. . . allows for only enlargement/reduction of the cursor” (Reply Br.
2), does not persuasively address the Examiner’s finding that Kerr generates
a final cursor position by combining cursor positions corresponding to the
remote control’s x- and y-axes absolute position and x- and y-axes relative
position (see Ans. 2 (citing Kerr 138); see also Final Act. 3, 5 (citing Kerr
134)). Indeed, paragraph 38 of Kerr, which Appellants do not address,
discloses that “relative position detection sub-system” data is “combined
with the x- and y-positions determined in [the absolute position detection
subsystem] to determine the location to which the remote control is
pointing.” (Kerr 138). We agree with the Examiner that the x- and y-axes
positions determined by Kerr’s absolute and relative position systems
5
Appeal 2016-002380
Application 13/000,889
correspond to respective cursor locations (see Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 3)
because Kerr combines its relative x- and y-axes position and its absolute x-
and y-axes position by adding the relative position change to the determined
absolute position (Kerr 134) and x- and y-axes positions correspond to
cursor locations, i.e., x- and y-axes positions “correspond[ to] movement of
[cursor] object 28 in the x- and y-axes” (Kerr 116).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Kerr
discloses
processing at least one of said estimated linear position and
estimated angular position using both a first mapping algorithm
to generate a first cursor location and a second mapping
algorithm to generate a second cursor location, and combining
said first cursor location and said second cursor location to
generate a final cursor output,
within the meaning of independent claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 30, 31, and 34.
Issue 2
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kerr discloses “an
absolute pointing algorithm which has a characteristic that a ratio of cursor
motion to angular device motion changes as a function of distance between
said device and a display on which a cursor is displayed,” as recited in claim
3. (App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 3). Specifically, Appellants argue the distance
between Kerr’s display and remote control device does not change “cursor
motion,” and instead “enlarge[s] or reduc[es] the image 28 or a portion of
the image shown on the display.” (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds
Figure 4 of Kerr shows “the relationship between angular device motion and
distance of the pointer to the display” and “it is inherent that the ratio of
6
Appeal 2016-002380
Application 13/000,889
cursor motion to angular device motion is affected by the distance between
the pointing device and display unit on which the cursor is displayed.” (Ans.
5; Final Act. 6). Figure 4 of Kerr discloses a manner of “determin[ing] an
initial absolute z-position of remote control 16” corresponding to a distance
between a display and the remote control (Kerr 139); however, the z-
position of Kerr’s remote does not change the motion of Kerr’s cursor.
Instead, z-axis movement “enlarge[s] or reduce[s] at least a portion of the
image shown on display” (Kerr || 17, 25, 47—48) and Kerr’s movement of
the “remote control 16 in the x- and y-axes” provides the “movement of
[cursor] object 28” (Kerr 116). The Examiner has not identified sufficiently
where Kerr discloses that motion in the z-axis, i.e., the distance between the
display and the remote control, changes cursor motion.
Accordingly, based on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
§102 rejection of independent claim 3 and claims 4 and 108, which depend
directly or indirectly from claim 3.
Issue 3
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kerr discloses “a
direct, repeatable mapping from device linear position and angular position
into cursor location and . . . cursor responsiveness to linear motion and
angular motion is consistent over a motion,” as recited in claim 6. (App. Br.
10). Specifically, Appellants argue “Kerr does not disclose any ‘mapping
algorithms,”’ and accordingly “Kerr does not use ‘repeatable mapping.’”
(Id.). Appellants further argue “Kerr is not concerned with consistency of
cursor responsiveness to both linear motion and angular motion.” (Id.).
7
Appeal 2016-002380
Application 13/000,889
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds (Final
Act. 7), and we agree, Kerr teaches its remote control “move[s] object 28 to
the location to which the remote control is pointing. Thus, when the user
moves remote control 16 in the x- and y-axes, display 30 can show a
corresponding movement of object 28 in the x- and y-axes” (Kerr 116).
Appellants’ argument that Kerr does not teach repeatable mapping
because “Ker does not disclose any ‘mapping algorithms’” (App. Br. 10) is
unpersuasive because it is without elaboration, and furthermore, as discussed
supra, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kerr’s cursor positions
correspond, i.e., are mapped, to the remote control’s absolute and relative
positions, thus describing mapping algorithms. Further, Appellants’
argument that Kerr’s cursor response is not “consistent” to “both linear and
angular motion” (App. Br. 10) is not persuasive. Appellants argue Kerr’s
determined angles “are not used for the purposes of changing ‘cursor
motion’” (Reply Br. 3). Although we agree that Kerr does not use angular
motion to move its cursor and instead tracks the x- and y-axis position of its
controller (Kerr H 16, 38), Kerr’s cursor response is nevertheless
“consistent” in that it never uses angular motion when moving its cursor.
Moreover, Kerr’s x- and y-axes cursor movement is based on the continued
tracking of the x- and y-axes motions of Kerr’s remote control (see Kerr
116, Figs. 3, 8), and Appellants do not persuasively address how Kerr’s
tracked remote control motion in the x- and y-axes is inconsistent.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Kerr
discloses “a direct, repeatable mapping from device linear position and
angular position into cursor location and . . . cursor responsiveness to linear
8
Appeal 2016-002380
Application 13/000,889
motion and angular motion is consistent over a motion,” as recited in claim
6.
Issue 4
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kerr discloses
“generat[ing] cursor position as a sum of a term of linear position values and
a term computed from angular position that is independent of linear
position,” as recited in claim 7. (App. Br. 11). Specifically, Appellants
argue “[t]here does not appear to be any summing, nor computing terms of a
linear position and an angular position that is independent of linear position
in Kerr.” (Id.).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds
Kerr’s “Z value is used to determine angular position.” (Final Act. 7—8
(citing Kerr 116—17)). However, Kerr’s z value is used to determine the
“z[-axis] position of [the] remote control” corresponding to the distance the
remote is from a display, i.e., Kerr’s z value corresponds to the linear
position of the remote control, but not an angular position of Kerr’s remote
control. (Kerr || 17—18). Moreover, even if Kerr’s z value or z-axis
position were an angular position, Kerr does not include, let alone “sum,”
the z value or position when generating its cursor position because Kerr’s
cursor position is based on “move[ment of the] remote control 16 in the x-
andy-axes.” (Kerr 116). The Examiner has not adequately explained why
a position along Kerr’s z-axis is an angular position or how Kerr’s z-axis is
summed for determining cursor position. Accordingly, based on this record,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of dependent claim 7.
9
Appeal 2016-002380
Application 13/000,889
Issue 5
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kerr discloses
“mapping algorithms create[ ] an intermediate, spherical virtual display,” as
recited in claim 12. (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3—4). Specifically, Appellants
argue the “virtual display of Yoo is a flat virtual region which corresponds to
the actual display region.” (App. Br. 12 (citing Yoo Figs. 7—8)).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds
Yoo teaches “movement of the device which creates a spherical virtual
display (i.e., an arc) which in tu[r]n[] create[s] a virtual display 590.” (Ans.
5—6 (citing Yoo Figs. 2, 5); Final Act. 6). The Examiner has not adequately
explained the construction of the claimed spherical virtual display and has
not mapped Yoo’s device movement and virtual display to the recited
spherical virtual display in sufficient detail. In particular, the Examiner has
not sufficiently explained how Yoo’s virtual display 590 (shown in Figure 5
as a planar display) is a spherical virtual display. Furthermore, the Examiner
has not adequately explained how the arcing movement of Yoo’s device is
itself a spherical virtual display.
Accordingly, based on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of dependent claim 12 and claims 13, 14, 16, 17 which
depend directly or indirectly from claim 12. Because we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 12 on this issue, we do not reach the
merits of Appellants’ § 103 arguments regarding claim 13 which depends
from claim 12. (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4).
10
Appeal 2016-002380
Application 13/000,889
Remaining Claims 10, 32, 107, and 109—113
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims
10, 32, 107, and 109-113, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 2,
6, 9, 30, 31, and 34. (See App. Br. 4—13). For the reasons set forth above,
therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims.
See In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that
the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to
articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to
be treated separately.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 10, 32, 107, and 109-113. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, and 108 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kerr is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12—14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kerr and Yoo is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6, 30-32, 34, 107, 109, and
111—113 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kerr is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, and 110 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kerr and Yoo 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-IN-PART
11