Computer graphics processing and selective visual display system – Display peripheral interface input device
Reexamination Certificate
2001-03-21
2004-01-13
Chang, Kent (Department: 2673)
Computer graphics processing and selective visual display system
Display peripheral interface input device
C345S173000, C345S175000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06677929
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Most appliances and machines have controls by which the appliance is operated by a user. The usual case, and especially so before the advent of microprocessor control, was for some mechanically moveable element, such a pivoted lever or journaled shaft, to be moved by the operator. Something (e.g., a valve or a brake pad) connected to the mechanically moveable element directly affected the operation of the appliance. Even in the case of electrical and electronic appliances, the contacts of switches, wipers of potentiometers, rotors of capacitors and slugs of inductors were moved by the power of the human hand (or perhaps a foot). We have nothing against hands (or feet), and merely wish to point out that, even including power amplification servo systems, the movement of the hand operated control was accompanied by a corresponding alteration in the condition of some circuit, which is to say, a fundamental shift in value of some circuit component was produced by the mechanical motion. Consider, for example, an older radio for the consumer market. If one wanted to increase the volume, she rotated the shaft of a pot used as a variable ratio voltage divider in an audio amplifier circuit. Likewise, to change the station the value of a reactive component was directly altered by mechanical motion provided by the user.
Once microprocessors became ubiquitous, the situation changed to include additional control paradigms. Digital control became an established technique, with DAC's (Digital to Analog Converters), FET's (Field Effect Transistors) and varactor diodes providing ways to change circuit behavior (e.g., gain, resonance) based on a binary value stored in a register. New control paradigms emerged, such as a radio having a display of digits indicating the currently tuned station frequency and various buttons to incrementally tune up or down, and without benefit of a movable capacitor or tuning slug. With the further advent of GUI's (Graphical User Interfaces) implemented with standardized operating systems running on standardized microprocessors, the motion of a computer mouse (or other screen pointer mechanism) can replace the act of imparting genuine mechanical motion to actual variable components within a circuit. With these control paradigms the need for mechanical coupling between the user's hand and the electronic component whose value is to change has gone away completely. Some very complex control schemes are realizable in this way, which are often beyond the scope of what would be practical with actual front panel controls (“real hardware”). So, to change the colors seen in a computer generated image, one interacts with menus or with other control paradigms presented by a GUI. To program a VCR one fiddles (sometimes for a long time) with the arrow keys on a remote control while studying what is shown on the screen of the TV.
Increasing complexity and miniaturization are two trends whose courses appear nowhere near yet run. Such pocket sized devices as PDA's (Personal Digital Assistants), wireless or cellular phones, and GPS (Global Positioning System) receivers have, if individual transistors were counted as parts, a tremendous number of components. They also have large number of “controls” that can be altered to produce different behavior. Typically, there is no way that corresponding actual physical controls could be included in the product. They add expense, they decrease reliability, when made small they are easily broken and are hard to use, etc. Even if reduced to truly miniature form, there would often not be enough room on the product for the number of actual physical controls that would be needed. What has made such pocket-sized products possible in the first instance are, of course, the microprocessor, a rudimentary keyboard and a limited function dedicated display. The use of what may be termed “entry keys” interacts via a display to produce a large number of “virtual controls” while requiring only a modest number of “real controls” to serve as the entry keys. Larger and more sophisticated (or perhaps merely more technical) appliances such as processor controlled digital oscilloscopes or logic analyzers typically have (at least as an option) a full keyboard to support the remaining full disaster: a commercial windows type operating system (whether from Microsoft, Apple or a UNIX variant based on X-11) and a computer grade display. Such systems require a screen pointer and a way to control it; they typically use a mouse.
Many useful appliances and machines are complex in their operation, but as pocket sized or hand held units, are too small for a mouse (or any of its direct equivalents) to be practical (or in some cases, even desirable). But the small size in no way means that there is not also a complex control set. There is often plenty of room in a hand held unit for a powerful processor and a lot of memory. Display technology is no serious limitation, either. The capabilities of a mouse powered GUI is sometimes appropriate for these appliances; it is the mouse itself (or anything else that sticks out to snag on clothing or get broken off) that is unwelcome. Sometimes pairs of arrow or cursor control keys (for up/down, left/right) have been used in place of a mouse. That technique consumes space on the keyboard and is limited to separate individual steps of fixed size in different directions; for example, one could not “directly” translate the screen pointer along a path inclined at 45° (or some other arbitrary angle) to one of the axes represented by one of the pairs of keys (one would have to press the keys in alternation, and the step size of screen pointer motion may become an issue). We need the capabilities of a mouse without the bulk and mechanical fussiness of the mouse (or of its cousin, the conventional track ball). It was partly in that spirit that the Application MOUSELESS OPTICAL AND POSITION TRANSLATION TYPE SCREEN POINTER CONTROL FOR A COMPUTER SYSTEM was filed. The optical fingertip tracking apparatus disclosed therein (and herein, too) is a good mouse eliminator for lap top computers and the like.
But upon reflection it is also more than that. It is sufficiently small, yet provides outstanding resolution, and imposes no severe speed or power consumption limitations. The chip set that provides the motion signals is self contained, as it were, so that none of the computational overhead needed to perform the basic tracking of the fingertip need bother the mechanisms in the appliance to which it is added. That is, if there are sufficient software resources to support a mouse and GUI, then the fingertip tracking ability is essentially a viable direct substitute for a mouse. However, owing to its small size and being responsive to the motion of a fingertip (or pad of a thumb), it can be used as part of an additional control or data input paradigm that is impractical for a mouse. The purpose of the instant Application is principally to set forth some new ways to control the operation of an appliance through the use of an improved tip-of-a-digit (fingertip) tracker that we shall come to call a “pseudo trackball.” It will also become clear that a full blown conventional GUI of the sort used for a mouse will not in every case be necessary, nor even desirable, and that a minimal GUI crafted to match the particular features and needs of the appliance or machine is the best choice.
The nature of the conventional (mechanical) mouse, used in conjunction with a cooperating mouse pad, is briefly set out below. Centrally located within the bottom surface of the mouse is a hole through which a portion of the underside of a rubber-surfaced steel ball extends. The mouse pad is typically a closed cell foam rubber pad covered with a suitable fabric. Low friction pads on the bottom surface slide easily over the fabric, but the rubber ball does not skid, but instead rolls as the mouse is moved. Interior to the mouse are rollers, or wheels, that contact the ball at its equator and convert its rotation into electrical
Gordon Gary B.
Miller Edward L
Agilent Technologie,s Inc.
Chang Kent
Miller Edward L.
Sheng Tommy
LandOfFree
Optical pseudo trackball controls the operation of an... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Optical pseudo trackball controls the operation of an..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Optical pseudo trackball controls the operation of an... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3193524