Shunock, Michael Stewart.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2021

2020005528 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2021)

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.
15/212,733 07/18/2016 Michael Stewart Shunock 23719-P48775US01 2530
1059 7590 10/28/2021
BERESKIN & PARR LLP/S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l.
40 KING STREET WEST
40TH FLOOR
TORONTO, ONTARIO M5H 3Y2
CANADA
EXAMINER
TRAN, TAN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2021 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):
ipprocessingcentre@bereskinparr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL STEWART SHUNOCK and LINDA ARHIN
Appeal 2020-005528
Application 15/212,733
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, BETH Z. SHAW, and MICHAEL T.
CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Michael Stewart
Shunrock. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005528
Application 15/212,733
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “methods and systems for receiving
feedback from a user, and more particularly to receiving feedback based on
determining a first directional value and a second directional value of a user
contact with a touch display screen.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method of receiving feedback from
a user, the method comprising:
displaying an item on a touch display screen, the touch
display screen being operable to detect a user contact with the
touch display screen;
defining, with respect to the touch display screen, a first
direction of the touch display screen and a second direction of
the touch display screen such that the user contact with the touch
display screen indicates both a first directional value in the first
direction, and a second directional value in the second direction;
then detecting the user contact with the touch display screen
when the touch display screen is displaying of the item;
determining the first directional value and the second
directional value of the user contact; and,
determining a response to the user contact based on the
first directional value, the second directional value and the item;
wherein the response varies with any variation in one of
the first directional value and the second directional value.
Appeal 2020-005528
Application 15/212,733
3
REFERENCE(S)
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Roundtree US 2018/0018396 A1 Jan. 18, 2018
Matas US 2018/0069939 A1 Mar. 8, 2018
Honan US 2010/0180232 A1 July 15, 2010
Abbas US 2015/0356093 A1 Dec. 10, 2015
Wu US 2015/0106735 A1 Apr. 16, 2015
Cohen US 2016/0371751 A1 Dec. 22, 2016
Byrnes US 2013/0154980 A1 June 20, 2013

REJECTION(S)
The Examiner rejected claims 1–5, 10, 11, 16, 18, and 20–23 under 35
U.S.C. 102 as unpatentable over Roundtree. Final Act. 4–11.
The Examiner rejected claims 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Roundtree and Matas. Final Act. 12–14.
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable
over Roundtree and Honan. Final Act. 15–16.
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable
over Roundtree and Abbas. Final Act. 17.
The Examiner rejected claim 13–14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Roundtree and Wu. Final Act. 17–20.
The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable
over Roundtree, Wu, and Abbas. Final Act. 20–21.
The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable
over Roundtree and Cohen. Final Act. 21–23.
The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable
over Roundtree and Byrnes. Final Act. 23.
Appeal 2020-005528
Application 15/212,733
4
OPINION
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION BASED ON ROUNDTREE
Claims 1–5, 10, 11, 16, 18, and 20–23
Appellant argues that Roundtree fails to disclose “wherein the
response varies with any variation in one of the first directional value and
the second directional value.” Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellant
contends that Roundtree only teaches command zones, where “[t]he
command associated with user input can thus be defined based on the zone
in which the user input falls.” Appeal Br 9. Appellant explains, in
Roundtree, “[a] user can select the functionality associated with each zone
by moving a cursor, finer, stylus, etc. and/or brand/content item 104 into
each zone. As the brand/content item 104 is substantially moved into zone
506, the zone’s functionality is selected (see e.g., paragraph [0059] of
Roundtree).” Appeal Br. 9. However, Appellant argues Roundtree fails to
teach the response varies with any variation because “changes in the x-
coordinate and/or y-coordinate of a user contact location in Roundtree can
occur while remaining within the same zone” with the resulting command
remaining the same. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant,
[o]ne of the advantages of receiving feedback based on multiple
directional values and not zones is that it becomes possible to
draw far more subtle and nuanced distinctions between different
feedbacks received from different users, and to readily
communicate/display this information. In contrast, in Roundtree,
different users may provide subtly different feedbacks, which
would not be distinguished because these different user
feedbacks would fall within the same zone.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant maintains, then, that Roundtree fails to disclose
“the response varies with any variation in one of the first directional value
and the second directional value.” Id.
Appeal 2020-005528
Application 15/212,733
5
The Examiner, on the other hand, determines that Roundtree teaches
the disputed limitation. For example, the Examiner points out that
Roundtree discloses an input in zone 508 identifies a favorable view in
contrast to an input in zone 514, which identifies an unfavorable view. Ans.
23–24. According to the Examiner, this satisfies the claimed response varies
with any variation in one of the first and second directional value. Ans. 24.
The Examiner explains
it seems that Applicant’s argument is directed to the response
varies with all variation in one of the first directional value and
the second directional value. However, the claim language has
indicated the response varies with any variation in one of the first
directional value and the second directional value. In this case,
“Any” means some subset of the available choices or it may
mean just one. As such the teachings read on the above claim
feature.
Ans. 24.
We agree with the Examiner. We understand Appellant interprets the
claimed response varies with any variation in directional value to mean that
the response varies with all or every variation in the directional value. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 3–5. As the Examiner points out, though, a
broad but reasonable interpretation of “any” is one or some. Ans. 25; see
also The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, (5th Ed.
2020), available at https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=any
(defining “any” as “One or some; no matter which”).
Appellant’s argument that “for any” is a universal qualifier is not
persuasive. See Reply Br. 3–4 (arguing that “for any” is equivalent to “for
all” or “for every”). Namely, we do not dispute that “for any,” in some
instances, may be a universal qualifier. However, Appellant’s argument
fails to demonstrate that such a narrow interpretation is required here.
Appeal 2020-005528
Application 15/212,733
6
Instead, the Specification more generally describes “[t]he visual indicator
item that is displayed may vary depending on the first directional value and
the second directional value.” Spec. ¶ 109; see also Spec. ¶ 118 (explaining
that, in some embodiments, the displayed indicator is adjusted based on
changes in a first or second directional values). Additionally, Appellant
does not identify any definition in the Specification that requires “for any” to
mean “for every” or “for all.” Thus, in view of the Examiner’s construction
of “any,” which is consistent with its usage in the Specification and is
supported by extrinsic evidence, the Examiner reasonably interprets “any” as
one or some and, thus, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–5, 10, 11, 16, 18,
and 20–23 as anticipated by Roundtree.

THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 6–9, 12–15, 17, and 19
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of claims 6–9,
12–15, 17, and 19. See Appeal Br. 13. As discussed above, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by
Roundtree. For the same reasons, we are also not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6–9, 12–15, 17, and 19 as unpatentable
over the cited combination of prior art and sustain the rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–23 is sustained.
Appeal 2020-005528
Application 15/212,733
7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 10, 11,
16, 18, 20–
23
102 Roundtree 1–5, 10, 11,
16, 18, 20–
23

6–8 103 Roundtree, Matas 6–8
9 103 Roundtree, Honan 9
12 103 Roundtree, Abbas 12
13–14 103 Roundtree, Wu 13–14
15 103 Roundtree, Wu,
Abbas
15
17 103 Roundtree, Cohen 17
19 103 Roundtree, Byrnes 19
Overall
Outcome
1–23
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED