Charles J. Pisula et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 18, 2019

12566673 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2019)

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.
12/566,673 09/25/2009 Charles J. Pisula P7562US4/77770000169104 2813
150004 7590 12/18/2019
DENTONS US LLP - Apple
4655 Executive Dr
Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
EXAMINER
SHIAU, SHEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2019 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):
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHARLES J. PISULA, NITIN K. GANATRA, and
IMRAN CHAUDHRI
____________

Appeal 2018-002721
Application 12/566,673
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC B. CHEN, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 6–8, 10–13, and 15–30, which constitute all
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant
waived an Oral Hearing that was scheduled for November 5, 2019.
We REVERSE.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to “appli-
cant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-002721
Application 12/566,673
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to variable scrolling with a display and a touch-
sensitive surface. Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 258, 363–368, Figs. 5A, 5B, 5BBB,
5CCC. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal (emphases added):
1. A method, comprising:
at an electronic device with a display and a touch-sensi-
tive surface:
displaying a progress icon in a predefined area on the dis-
play, wherein the progress icon is configured to move in a first
predefined direction on the display;
providing a first piece of content with the electronic de-
vice;
indicating a current position within the first piece of con-
tent with the progress icon;
concurrently displaying with the progress icon a multi-
purpose content navigation icon at a first location on the dis-
play; and,
while providing the first piece of content with the elec-
tronic device:
detecting a first contact with the touch-sensitive surface
at a first location on the touch-sensitive surface that corre-
sponds to the first location of the multi-purpose
content navigation icon on the display for at least a predeter-
mined time period;
while continuing to detect the contact at the first location
on the touch-sensitive surface, moving the current position
within the first piece of content at a predefined scrubbing rate;
detecting movement of the contact, wherein movement of
the contact comprises a first component of movement on the
touch-sensitive surface in a direction that corresponds to move-
ment on the display parallel to the first predefined direction;
and,
in response to detecting the movement of the contact:
while continuing to detect the contact and while detecting
the first component of movement increasing, moving the current
position within the first piece of content at a variable scrubbing
Appeal 2018-002721
Application 12/566,673
3
rate, wherein the variable scrubbing rate varies at least in part
in accordance with the first component of movement on the
touch-sensitive surface; and
maintaining display of the multi-purpose content naviga-
tion icon at the first location on the display.

Appeal Br. 46 (Claims App.).

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6–8, 11–13, 17–19, 21–25, 26, and 28–30 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anzures et al. (US
2008/0055264 A1; pub. Mar. 6, 2008) (“Anzures”) in view of Mudd et al.
(US 2008/0222546 A1; pub. Sept. 11, 2008) (“Mudd”), and Kuzmin (US
2008/0075368 Al; pub. Mar 27, 2008) “(Kuzmin”). Final Act. 12–24.
Claims 10, 20, and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anzures, Mudd, Kuzmin, and Kim (US
2009/0077491 Al; pub. Mar. 19, 2009) (“Kim”). Final Act. 24–26.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues:

First, Anzures, Mudd, and Kuzmin, either alone or in com-
bination, do not teach or suggest varying a scrubbing rate “while
continuing to detect the contact and while detecting the first com-
ponent of movement increasing,” as recited in representative in-
dependent claim 1.
Second, those cited references do not teach or suggest,
alone or in combination, varying a scrubbing rate “at least in part
in accordance with the first component of movement on the
touch-sensitive surface,” as recited in representative independent
claim 1.
Third, even if, arguendo, those cited references disclosed
each of those elements, as the Examiner argued, it would not
Appeal 2018-002721
Application 12/566,673
4
have been obvious to combine them in the manner argued by the
Examiner.

Appeal Br. 13.

We focus initially on Appellant’s argument that Kuzmin does not
teach the claim 1 limitations
concurrently displaying with the progress icon a multi-
purpose content navigation icon at a first location on the dis-
play; and,
while providing the first piece of content with the elec-
tronic device:
detecting a first contact with the touch-sensitive surface
at a first location on the touch-sensitive surface that corre-
sponds to the first location of the multi-purpose
content navigation icon on the display for at least a predeter-
mined time period;
while continuing to detect the contact at the first location
on the touch-sensitive surface, moving the current position
within the first piece of content at a
predefined scrubbing rate;
detecting movement of the contact, wherein movement of
the contact comprises a first component of movement on the
touch-sensitive surface in a direction that
corresponds to movement on the display parallel to the first pre-
defined direction; and,
in response to detecting the movement of the contact:
while continuing to detect the contact and while detecting
the first component of movement increasing, moving the current
position within the first piece of content at a variable scrubbing
rate, wherein the variable scrubbing rate varies at least in part
in accordance with the first component of movement on the
touch-sensitive surface.

Appeal Br. 12–34; Reply Br. 3–23. (Emphasis added).
In particular, Appellant argues, inter alia, that Kuzmin (and Anzures,
Mudd, and Kim) do not teach varying a scrubbing rate “while continuing to
Appeal 2018-002721
Application 12/566,673
5
detect the contact and while detecting the first component of movement in-
creasing” and “varying a scrubbing rate” “at least in part in accordance with
the first component of movement on the touch-sensitive surface.” (Also re-
ferred to as the “disputed limitations”). Id.
The Examiner finds Kuzmin teaches dynamically changing the play
speed according to the speed of the input object over the input surface, in-
stead of according to the duration of the actuation (as the Examiner finds is
taught by Mudd). Final Act. 13. The Examiner finds
Kuzmin teaches “. . . . to input a NEXT/FORWARD com-
mand, a user may stroke a finger from a second input element
808 of a first horizontal bar input surface 802 to a third input
element 810 of a second horizontal bar input surface 804 .... play
speed ..... the value of the incremental change is dynamic and
depends upon at least one of the following parameters ..... (ii)
length of the input sequence, (iii) duration of the sweep, and (iv)
speed of the input object over the input surface . . . .. ” (Para-
graphs 52, 64, 87, 94-95; Figure 18; Claims 19, 26-27, 43-50). It
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to modify Anzures and Mudd with the
teachings of Kuzmin with the motivation to provide a compact
data entry system (Paragraph 15).

Final Act. 14.
In the Answer, the Examiner reiterates the findings in the Final Action
and finds that Appellant misinterprets Kuzmin. Ans. 2–6. According to the
Examiner, Kuzmin teaches that “the sweep begins when an input object (e.g.
finger) interacts with an input surface and ends when an input object stops or
discontinues interaction with an input surface (Paragraph 52).” Id. at 3. The
Examiner finds
[i]n other words, user can begin the sweep from a first in-
put element 806 to a second input element 808 (a complete input
Appeal 2018-002721
Application 12/566,673
6
sequence 814) to activate the PLAY function and then continues
the sweep from a second input element 808 to a third input ele-
ment 810 (a complete input sequence 818) to activate
NEXT/FORWARD function and the sweep can continue to acti-
vate other function until user stops or discontinues interaction
with an input surface to end the sweep. Therefore, Kuzmin does
teach a single sweep performs multiple functions. Kuzmin then
further teaches the function is an incremental change of parame-
ter entered by the input sequence wherein the value of the incre-
mental change is dynamic and can depend upon at least one of
(i) a current value of the parameter, (ii) length of the input se-
quence, (iii) duration of the sweep, and (iv) speed of the input
object over the input surface. (Claims 43-50).
Kuzmin's incremental change, in the example of the play
speed, is dynamic and depends upon at least the speed of the in-
put object (e.g. user's finger) over the input surface is used to
teach the variable play speed that varies in accordance with the
speed of the input object (user's finger) over the input surface. In
other words, the speed of user's finger sweeping over the input
surface containing the input elements (806 to 808) is the speed
for playing the content and as user sweeping further to the right
toward element 810 but not yet reaching element 810, the play
speed is increased in accordance with user's finger sweeping
movement further to the right until after user sweeping pass ele-
ment 810 to activate forward function which will have a play
speed faster than the previous play speed of the play function.
This is similar to scrubbing except Kuzmin did not used the word
scrub. However, it would have been obvious to modify Mudd
with Kuzmin’s teaching to replace the time based pressing and
holding button method with the speed based sweeping over input
elements to control the play speed of the content with the moti-
vation to provide a compact data entry system and to prevent ac-
cidental input of a command which typically occurs with a single
touch command such as pressing a single button or input element
(Paragraphs 15, 95).
Ans. 3–4. (Emphasis added).
Appellant argues Kuzmin teaches performing functions (commands)
by entering specified sequences through inputs. Appeal Brief 19–34 (citing
Appeal 2018-002721
Application 12/566,673
7
Kuzmin Figs. 17, 18; ¶¶ 15, 18, 52, 58, 71, 94, 95). According to Appellant,
Kuzmin’s sequence is initiated by selecting the appropriate inputs and the
specified sweep of the appropriate inputs to perform the desired function,
e.g., PLAY or NEXT/FORWARD. Id. at 19–30. Appellant argues that
Kuzmin’s function is not completed/performed until the sequence (single
continuous sweep) is completed and the input is released. Id. at 24–28 (cit-
ing Kuzmin, Fig. 18; ¶¶ 94, 95; claim 1). According to Appellant, Kuzmin
teaches using a sequence of input elements to avoid accidental input and this
is accomplished by a system in which the sweep must be completed before
executing any function or command. Id. at 28 (citing Kuzmin ¶¶ 61, 94, 95;
claim 1).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates arguments and argues that the
Examiner relies on a lack of description in Kuzmin to find that additional se-
quences do not rely on the input elements of Figure 18. Reply Br. 5–9. Ap-
pellant argues that the plain reading of Kuzmin supports that paragraph 95
and Figure 18 rely on the identified input elements for sweeps, and the Ex-
aminer’s finding to the contrary is based on improper assumptions. Id. at 8–
12.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because, on the record
before us, the Examiner presents insufficient evidence that Kuzmin (and the
other cited references) teach the limitations of claim 1. In particular, there is
insufficient evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that Kuzmin teaches
performing a sweep that would, for example, perform the PLAY and
NEXT/FORWARD function. Instead, the teaching of Kuzmin teaches
PLAY is one sweep and NEXT/FORWARD is a different sweep. If, as sug-
gested by the Examiner, these sweeps were performed in succession, without
Appeal 2018-002721
Application 12/566,673
8
removing the contact until the completion of the NEXT/FORWARD sweep,
only the NEXT/FORWARD function would be performed. See Kuzmin Fig.
18; ¶¶ 94, 95. The claim recites “while continuing to detect the contact . . .
moving the . . . at a predefined scrubbing rate” and “while continuing to de-
tect the contact and while detecting . . . movement increasing, moving . . . at
a variable scrubbing rate.” However, Kuzmin does not teach varying a
scrubbing rate from a predefined scrubbing rate to a variable scrubbing rate
while continuing to detect the contact. Therefore, Kuzmin does not teach
varying a scrubbing rate “while continuing to detect the contact and while
detecting the first component of movement increasing” and “varying a
scrubbing rate” “at least in part in accordance with the first component of
movement on the touch-sensitive surface.”
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, inde-
pendent claims 15 and 16, which are commensurate in scope with claim 1,
and dependent claims 2–13, and 17–30. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independ-
ent claims from which they depend are nonobvious . . . .”).
Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitation is disposi-
tive of the rejections, we do not address additional arguments raised by
Appellant.
Appeal 2018-002721
Application 12/566,673
9
DECISION

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–8, 11–13, 17–
19, 21–25, 26, and
28–30
103(a) Anzures, Mudd,
and Kuzmin
1, 6–8, 11–13,
17–19, 21–25, 26,
and 28–30
10, 20 and 27 103(a) Anzures, Mudd,
Kuzmin, and Kim
10, 20, and 27
Overall Outcome 1, 6–8, 10–13,
and 15–30