Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 27, 2020

14274673 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 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.
14/274,673 05/09/2014 Bryan Todd Agnetta AM2-1302US 4799
136607 7590 10/27/2020
Lee & Hayes P.C./Amazon
601 West Riverside Avenue
Suite 1400
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
HO, RUAY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2020 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):
lhpto@leehayes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRYAN TODD AGNETTA,
VENKATA NAGESH BABU BALIVADA, BLAIR HAROLD BEEBE,
JOSEPH ROBERT BUCHTA, VIBHUNANDAN GAVINI,
CATHERINE ANN HENDRICKS,
BRIAN PETER KRALYEVICH,
SANTHOSH KUMAR PARALIYIL KRISHNANKUTTY,
RICHARD LEIGH MAINS, GARRET MARTIN MILLER GRAAF,
JAE PUM PARK, SEAN ANTHONY ROONEY,
MARC ANTHONY SALAZAR, and NINO YUNIARDI

Appeal 2019-004045
Application 14/274,673
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject Claims 1–12, 14–26, 28, and 29, which are all of the
claims pending in the present application. Appeal Br. 1; see also
Claims App., Appeal Br. 26–35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Amazon Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004045
Application 14/274,673

2
We REVERSE.2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to “Electronic devices, interfaces for electronic
devices, and techniques for interacting with such interfaces and electronic
devices.” See Abstract.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 12, and 28 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A handheld electronic device comprising:
a display on which to present one or more graphical user
interfaces, a display axis defined perpendicular to the display;
one or more sensors;
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions operable to cause the one or
more processors to perform operations comprising:
presenting a first graphical user interface of an
application on the display responsive to receiving a
first signal from the one or more sensors indicating
that the handheld electronic device is oriented with
the display axis in an initial orientation;
presenting a second graphical user interface of the
application on the display and removing the first
graphical user interface from the display responsive
to receiving a second signal from the one or more

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”)
filed February 11, 2019, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed April 24, 2019,
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed September 10, 2018, the
Examiner’s Answer mailed March 8, 2019, and the Specification (“Spec.”)
filed May 9, 2014.
Appeal 2019-004045
Application 14/274,673

3
sensors indicative of a first tilt gesture in which the
handheld electronic device is oriented with the
display axis offset from the initial orientation by a
first angle in a first rotational direction; and
presenting a third graphical user interface of the
application on the display and removing the second
graphical user interface from the display responsive
to receiving a third signal from the one or more
sensors indicative of a second tilt gesture in which
the handheld electronic device is oriented with the
display axis offset from the initial orientation by a
second angle in a second rotational direction
opposite the first rotational direction.

PRIOR ART
Name3 Reference Date
Hildreth US 2009/0228841 A1 Sept. 10, 2009
Grant US 2012/0233565 A1 Sept. 13, 2013
Li US 2014/0207615 A1 July 24, 20144
Hillebrand US 2013/0057866 A1 Mar. 7, 2013
Teplitsky US 2014/0282205 A1 Sept. 18, 20145

REJECTIONS6 AT ISSUE
1. Claims 1–12, 14–26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing the written description requirement. Final Act. 3–
4.

3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
4 Filed January 23, 2013.
5 Priority: Provisional application 61,783,030, filed March 14, 2013.
6 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, was examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act 2.
Appeal 2019-004045
Application 14/274,673

4
2. Claims 1–12, 14–26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 4.
3. Claims 1, 12, 14, 16, 26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Hildreth. Final Act. 5–9.
4. Claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Hildreth, Li, and Hillebrand. Final Act. 10–11.
5. Claims 4, 5, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Hildreth, Teplitsky, and Grant. Final Act. 12–13.
6. Claims 6–10, 15, and 21–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Hildreth and Teplitsky. Final Act. 13–16.

ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all
of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final
Act. 16.

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1–12, 14–26, 28, AND 29: WRITTEN DESCRIPTION.
Independent Claims 1, 12, and 28 were amended to recite, inter alia,
“removing the first graphical user interface from the display responsive to
receiving a second signal” and “removing the second graphical user
interface from the display responsive to receiving a third signal.”
The Examiner finds the newly-amended features were not described
in the Specification as originally filed. Final Act. 4. In particular, the
Examiner finds that the claimed “removing” operation is not described, nor
Appeal 2019-004045
Application 14/274,673

5
is the claimed “signal” defined. Ans. 15. The Examiner further finds
Appellant’s Brief argues a “tilt gesture” is performed, not a “signal” is
received, thus confirming the argued features are not described in the
Specification. Id.
Appellant points to Figure 13A of the original Specification and
contends:
FIG. 13A illustrates an example home screen carousel 1302 at a
time when an icon associated with an email application has
user-interface focus. FIG. 13A also illustrates a left panel 1308
that the device 100 may display in response to a user
performing a tilt gesture to the left from the home screen 1300
and FIG. 13A illustrates a right panel 1310 that the user may
navigate to from the home screen 1300 in response to
performing a tilt gesture to the right.

Appeal Br. 11 (quoting Spec. ¶¶ 164–166).

Appellant contends the Specification fully disclosed the claimed
features citing as a non-limiting example:
process 8200 presents a first graphical user interface of an
application ... on a display of a handheld electronic device
responsive to receiving a signal from the one or more sensors
indicating that the handheld electronic device is oriented with a
display axis substantially aligned with a portion of a user’s
body.

Reply Br. 3 (quoting Spec. ¶ 297). Appellant continues:
process 8200 presents a second graphical user interface of the
application on the display responsive to receiving a signal from
the one or more sensors indicative of a first tilt gesture in which
the handheld electronic device is oriented with the display axis
offset from the portion of the user’s body by a first angle in a
first rotational direction.
Id.
Appeal 2019-004045
Application 14/274,673

6
With respect to the removing a graphical user interface in response to
a received orientation signal, Appellant again asserts that Figure 13A
illustrates the removal of a first (or second) displayed graphical user
interface based on the orientation of the device. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Spec.,
Fig. 13A).
We agree with Appellant (see Reply Br. 3) that the Specification
discloses one or more sensors that supply a signal in response to a tilt
gesture imparted to a hand-held device. Additionally, we find adequate
written description support for the claimed “removing” feature. In view of
the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1–12, 14–26, 28,
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
CLAIMS 1–12, 14–26, 28, AND 29: INDEFINITENESS.
With respect to independent Claims 1, 12, and 28, which were
amended to recite: “removing the first graphical user interface from the
display responsive to receiving a second signal” and “removing the second
graphical user interface from the display responsive to receiving a third
signal,” the Examiner finds these features “are not clear because they are not
described in the Specification of the present invention. Hence, it is not clear
how the second and third signals remove the first and second user graphical
user interface.” Final Act. 4.
Appellant contends the claims are definite at least for the reasons
discussed in connection with the written description rejections. Appeal
Br. 13.
The Examiner finds: “it is evident that [it is] hard to interpret the
argued features for lack of given description. The argued features are
Appeal 2019-004045
Application 14/274,673

7
unclear and indefinite; hence, those features are also rejected under 35 USC
§112(b).” Ans. 15.
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is whether “those
skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in
light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc.,
806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, and as discussed above, we find
the claims adequately described such that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand what is claimed. We, therefore, decline to sustain the
rejection of Claims 1–12, 14–26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).

CLAIMS 1, 12, 14, 16, 26, 28, AND 29: ANTICIPATION BY HILDRETH.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “removing the first graphical user interface
from the display responsive to receiving a second signal from the one or
more sensors indicative of a first tilt gesture.” The Examiner finds:
“Hildreth discloses Windows operation system which inherently discloses
the newly amended features of ‘removing the first graphical user interface’
and ‘removing the second graphical user interface’.” Final Act. 7.
Appellant contends the mere use of the Windows® operating system
does not inherently describe removing a GUI responsive to receiving a
signal of a “tilt gesture.” Appeal Br. 14.
The Answer fails to respond to Appellant’s argument.
We agree with the Examiner that the Windows® operating system is
capable of removing a GUI. But we agree with Appellant that Hildreth fails,
either inherently or explicitly, to condition the removal upon the receipt of a
“tilt gesture” signal.
Appeal 2019-004045
Application 14/274,673

8
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
1, 12, 14, 16, 26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as anticipated by
Hildreth.

CLAIMS 2, 3, 17, AND 18: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HILDRETH, LI, AND
HILLEBRAND.
Appellant contends dependent Claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 depend from
one of independent Claims 1 or 12 and neither Li or Hillebrand are cited as
teaching the limitations disputed above. Appeal Br. 21.
The Examiner does not cite either Li, or Hillebrand, to teach the
limitations disputed above. See Ans. 10–11.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
2, 3, 17, and 18.

CLAIMS 4, 5, 19, AND 20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HILDRETH, TEPLITSKY, AND
GRANT.
Appellant contends dependent Claims 4, 5, 19, and 20 depend from
one of independent Claims 1 or 12 and neither Teplinsky or Grant are cited
as teaching the limitations disputed above. Appeal Br. 21.
The Examiner does not cite either Teplinsky or Grant, to teach the
limitations disputed above. See Ans. 12–13.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
4, 5, 19, and 20.

Appeal 2019-004045
Application 14/274,673

9
CLAIMS 6–10, 15, AND 21–25: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HILDRETH AND
TEPLITSKY.
Appellant contends dependent Claims 6–10, 15, and 21–25 depend
from one of independent Claims 1 or 12 and Teplinsky is cited as teaching
the limitations disputed above. Appeal Br. 23.
The Examiner does not cite Teplinsky to teach the limitations disputed
above. See Ans. 13–16.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
6–10, 15, and 21–25.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of Claims 1–8 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12, 14–26, 28,
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of written description.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12, 14–26, 28,
and 29 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 12, 14, 16, 26,
28, and 29 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2–10, 15, and
17–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2019-004045
Application 14/274,673

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 14–26,
28, 29 112(a)
Written
Description
1–12,
14–26,
28, 29
1–12, 14–26,
28, 29 112(b) Indefiniteness
1–12,
14–26,
28, 29
1, 12, 14, 16,
26, 28, 29 102(a)(2) Hildreth
1, 12, 14,
16, 26,
28, 29
2, 3, 17, 18 103 Hildreth, Li, and Hillebrand
2, 3, 17,
18
4, 5, 19, 20 103 Hildreth, Teplinsky, Grant
4, 5, 19,
20
6–10, 15,
21–25 103
Hildreth,
Teplinsky
6–10, 15,
21–25
Overall
Outcome
1–12,
14–26,
28, 29

REVERSED