Ex Parte Blumenberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

13251152 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/251,152 09/30/2011
61725 7590 06/22/2016
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP I AI
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher Blumenberg
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P5040USC6/63266-5582US 1213
EXAMINER
DAO, TUANC.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER BLUMENBERG
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-29.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 5.
2 An oral hearing was held May 16, 2016.
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant's disclosure is directed to transferring function calls
between user interface software and software applications via an application
programming interface (API). The function calls may implement gesture
operations such as rotating or zooming in and out. See Abstract; Spec. i-fi-1 9,
12.
Claims 1, 5, 14, 22, and 27 are illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and are reproduced below:
1. A machine readable non-transitory medium storing:
a software application; and
user interface software interacting with the software
application, the user interface software including executable
program instructions, which, when executed, cause a data
processing system to perform a method comprising:
receiving a user input that comprises a plurality of
input points touching a display of the system;
transferring a gesture start event function call
through an application programming interface from the
user interface software to the software application in
response to the user input;
transferring a gesture changed event function call
through the application programming interface from the
user interface software to the software application in
response to a change in the user input; and
transferring a gesture end function call through the
application programming interface from the user interface
software to the software application when at least one
input point associated with the user input is removed from
the display.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
2
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
transferring a start gesture function call through the
application programming interface to a delegate associated with
the software application;
transferring a gesture did change function call through the
application programming interface to the delegate; and
transferring a gesture did finish function call through the
application programming interface to the delegate.
14. The device of claim 13, wherein the rotation transform to
set a start rotation angle and an end rotation angle;
wherein the gesture changed event function call further
comprises a length of a major and a minor axis of an input point;
and
wherein the gesture changed event function call further
comprises a velocity of an input point.
22. The method of claim 1, further storing:
instructions for displaying a user interface of the software
application including a plurality of views, wherein:
the user input corresponds to a respective vie\~1 of
the plurality of views;
transferring the gesture start event function call
includes transferring the gesture start event function call
from the user interface software to a control associated
with the respective view;
transferring the gesture changed event function call
includes transferring the gesture changed event function
call from the user interface software to the control
associated with the respective view; and
transferring the gesture end function call includes
transferring the gesture end function call from the user
interface software to the control associated with the
respective view.
27. The medium of claim 1, wherein the method further
includes:
3
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
displaying a user interface, of the software application,
including a plurality of views;
receiving a user input, that comprises one or more input
points, touching a respective view of the plurality of views on the
display of the system, wherein the respective view is associated
with a control of a plurality of controls;
in response to the user input, transferring a gesture start
event function call through the application programming
interface from user interface software, interacting with the
software application, to the control associated with the respective
view;
receiving a change in the user input, the change including
a movement of the user input from the respective view of the
plurality of views to another view of the plurality of views on the
display of the system;
in response to the change in the user input, transferring a
gesture changed event function call through the application
programming interface from the user interface software to the
control associated with the respective view; and
transferring a gesture end function call through the
application programming interface from the user interface
software to the control associated with the respective view.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 15-18, and 21-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gillespie (US
2005/0024341 Al; publ. Feb. 3, 2005) and Benko (US 2007/0247435 Al;
publ. Oct. 25, 2007). Final Act. 2-20.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 8, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Gillespie, Benko, and Lyon (US
2006/0066588 Al; publ. Mar. 30, 2006). Final Act. 20-22.
4
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gillespie, Benko, Lyon, and Hotelling (US
2006/0026536 Al; publ. Feb. 2, 2006). Final Act. 22-24.
The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gillespie, Benko, Lyon, Hotelling, and Westerman (US
2007 /0081726 Al; publ. Apr. 12, 2007). Final Act. 24--25.
ISSUES
The issues in this appeal are:
(i) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Gillespie and Benko teaches or suggests transferring function calls through
an API from user interface software to a software application as recited in
independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16;
(ii) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Gillespie and Benko teaches or suggests the limitations recited in dependent
claims 5, 10, and 15;
(iii) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Gillespie and Benko teaches or suggests the limitations recited in dependent
claims 22, 24, and 26;
(iv) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Gillespie and Benko teaches or suggests the limitations recited in dependent
claims 27-29; and
( v) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Westerman teaches or
suggests the limitations added by dependent claim 14.
5
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 in View
of Gillespie and Benko
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Gillespie
discloses the function calls recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15-22. Specifically,
Appellant maintains that the plain and ordinary meaning of "function call"-
as evidenced by a dictionary definition-is "an invocation of a routine" or
more generally "an invocation of a software routine or function." Id. at 15.
Appellant argues that paragraph 122 of Gillespie-which discloses that
driver 1620 forwards finger touch information to an application---does not
disclose transferring a gesture function call as claimed because finger touch
information is not a gesture function call. Id. at 25. Appellant further argues
that Gillespie teaches sending commands through an API from a software
application to a touch screen driver but not from a touch screen driver (user
interface software) to a software application in response to user input as
claimed. Id. at 22-25. Appellant also argues that Benko's physical event of
lifting a finger from a touchscreen is not a gesture end function call. Id. at
28-32. Appellant also argues that Gillespie and Benko do not teach or
suggest "receiving a user input that comprises a plurality of input points
touching a display of the system" and transferring a gesture changed event
function call in response to a change in the user input (i.e., a change in the
plurality of input points). App. Br. 32-33. In Appellant's view, Gillespie's
disclosure of placing two fingers on either side of an icon to select the icon
does not teach or suggest transferring a gesture changed event function call
in response to a change in the placement of the two fingers. App. Br. 33.
6
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
The Examiner responds that Appellant's specification states that
"[t]ransferring the function calls or messages may be include issuing,
initiating, invoking or receiving the function calls or messages." Ans. 4--5
(citing Spec. i-f 59). The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that issuing or initiating any action that invokes the
software-implemented gesture operation teaches "transferring a gesture
function call." Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds that Gillespie teaches
transferring gesture function calls such as in response to user's finger
touches on the touch screen. Ans. 7-10; Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner also
finds that Gillespie teaches that user gestures are transferred from a touch
screen driver to an application via an APL Ans. 10-12. The Examiner
further finds that Gillespie's disclosure of a user applying his finger to a
volume slide control teaches a gesture start event function call, and
Gillespie's disclosure of the user moving the finger to a different location for
volume control teaches a gesture changed event function call. Ans. 16. The
Examiner also relies on Gillespie's disclosure of using two fingers to select
an icon as teaching two input points, and on Benko' s disclosure of lifting a
finger off of a touchscreen to put a stretched icon back to its unstretched
state for teaching a gesture end function call when at least one input is
removed from the display. Ans. 20-22.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. We agree with and
adopt as our own the findings and reasoning of the Examiner. Appellant's
specification does not define or otherwise limit the scope of the term
"function call." See Spec. i-fi-1 9, 59, 151. The dictionary definition that
Appellant cites broadly defines a call as an invocation of a routine. App. Br.
7
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
59---61. Gillespie teaches user interface software (including a touch screen
driver) that receives user input on a touch screen such as sliding a volume
bar from one position to one or more other positions to adjust volume level.
Gillespie Figs. 4, 16, i-fi-19, 54, 119, 122. The driver forwards the
information through an API to the application. Id. at Fig. 16 and i-f 122. We
agree with the Examiner that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"function call," Gillespie teaches or suggests transferring a gesture start
event function call through an API from the user interface software to the
software application in response to the user input, and transferring a gesture
changed event function call through the API from the user interface software
to the software application in response to a change in the user input.
Moreover, Gillespie teaches or suggests monitoring changes in the user input
and invoking the corresponding action such as increasing the volume and
stopping the increase of volume. Gillespie Fig. 4, i-fi-138, 40, 41, 46, 54, 56,
77, 89, 90, 119, 122, 123. Gillespie and Benko also teach or suggest using
more than one input point touching a display, and Benko teaches ending a
gesture action by removing fingers from the display. See, e.g., Gillespie Fig.
7E, i-fi-154, 69-71, 73; Benko Abstract, Figs. 2-5, 12, 13, i-fi-f 10, 12, 35-37,
44.
Appellant attempts to individually distinguish Gillespie and Benko,
rather than addressing the combined teachings of the references. See App.
Br. 32-33. Each reference must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not ... that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
8
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). In KSR, the
Supreme Court criticized a rigid approach to determining obviousness based
on the disclosures of individual prior art references, with little recourse to
the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that a skilled artisan would
have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications. See
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415--422 (2007); see also
Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We agree with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious to combine Benko' s teachings
of ending a gesture action by removing one of two fingers from the display
with Gillespie's teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Final Act.
4. As taught or suggested by Benko, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
been motivated to do so to provide greater accuracy for interpreting user
inputs to a multi-touch sensitive display. See Benko i-f 10. Appellant fails to
persuasively challenge the Examiner's findings or explain why the claimed
invention would not have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of
the references.
We thus sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 and dependent claims 2--4, 7-9, 12, 13, 17-21, 23,
and 25 which are not argued separately.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5, 10, and 15
Appellant argues that the combination of Gillespie and Benko does
not teach "a delegate associated with the software application," as recited in
dependent claims 5, 10, and 15. App. Br. 34--38. Appellant maintains that
"delegate" is a term of art that refers to a first software object associated
9
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
with and providing a specific set of functionalities on behalf of a second
software object. Id. at 35. Appellant argues that the Examiner's equating a
software application to a delegate is inconsistent with the requirement of the
claims of a delegate "associated with" the software application. Id. at 36.
The Examiner interprets "delegate" as any software component-i.e.,
interface/ AP I/library /middleware/ application/ classes-that is associated
with "other software application" and that can receive or transfer a function
call to the software application. Ans. 26. According to the Examiner, the
claimed delegate includes interfaces, drivers, APis, or specific
routines/operations associated with the application. Id. The Examiner finds
that Gillespie teaches delegates in that it teaches an application launcher,
help menu, pop up help windows, a drop down menu, and a calculator. Id.
at 26-29.
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred. The claim requires
transferring function calls to "a delegate associated with the software
application." The Examiner has not cited sufficient evidence or provided
sufficient reasoning explaining how any of the cited examples from
Gillespie correspond to entities that are distinct from the application itself
and are also associated with the application. We thus do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5, 10, and 15.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 22, 24, and 26
Appellant argues that Gillespie and Benko do not teach or suggest the
features recited in claims 22, 24, and 26 that the same control associated
with the same view receives all three function calls: the gesture start even
10
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
function call, the gesture changed event function call, and the gesture end
function call. App. Br. 38--40.
The Examiner responds that the term "view" is described in the
specification as including "web, text, or image content." Ans. 31-33. The
Examiner finds that Gillespie's disclosure of user inputs moving the thumb
of a volume slider to different locations on the slider teaches inputs
corresponding to a respective view. Ans. 33-34.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. We agree with and
adopt as our own the findings and reasoning of the Examiner. Appellant's
specification broadly describes a view as including text or image content.
Spec. i-f 60; see also id. at Figs. 16A and 16B; i-f 107. Gillespie's Figure 4
illustrates an image with a number of icons, including icon 420 for volume
control with a visual slider and thumb. Gillespie Fig. 4, i-fi-1 46, 54. The
combination of Gillespie and Benko thus teaches or suggests user input
corresponding to a respective view (icon 420) of a plurality of views (other
icons), and transferring function calls to a control associated with the
respective view as claimed. See, e.g., Final Act. 8-9.
We thus sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 22, 24, and 26.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 27-29
Appellant argues that Gillespie and Benko do not teach or suggest the
features recited in claims 27-29 that the same control associated with the
respective view (the view initially touched by the user input) continues to
receive the gesture changed event function call and the gesture end function
call even after the user has moved from the respective view to another view.
11
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
App. Br. 41--43. Specifically, Appellant argues that Gillespie's finger
motions within the volume control region do not teach or suggest a
movement of the user input from one view to another view. Id. at 42.
Appellant also argues that Benko does not teach or suggest transferring two
distinct gesture function calls, namely a gesture changed event function call
and a gesture end function call. Id. at 43.
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner relies on
Gillespie's disclosure of inputs on the same volume control slider for
teaching "receiving a change in the user input, the change including a
movement of the user input from the respective view of the plurality of
views to another view of the plurality of views on the display of the system."
See Final Act. 9-11; Ans. 34--38. The Examiner fails to cite sufficient
evidence that Gillespie teaches or suggests receiving user inputs from
different views; the cited Gillespie volume control slider is a single view-
the user's inputs relate to that one view and the user's inputs control the
volume level of the device. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 27-29.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 14
Appellant argues that Westerman does not teach or suggest the
limitations added by claim 14. App. Br. 44--48. Specifically, Appellant
argues that Westerman's descriptions of computing velocity and major and
minor axis lengths do not teach or suggest that the velocity and the major
and minor axis lengths are included in the claimed gesture changed event
function call. Id. at 4 7--48.
12
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
The Examiner responds that Westerman teaches that the user applies
his fingers on a touchscreen and change his fingers' positions invoking
gesture operations. Ans. 41. The Examiner finds that Westerman teaches
calculating a length of major/minor axis of an input point and the velocity of
the input fingers or hands. Id. at 42. The Examiner also finds that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Westerman
with Gillespie, Benko, Lyon, and Hotelling for the purpose of distinguishing
between different types of manual inputs such as typing, multiple degree-of-
freedom manipulation, and handwriting on a multi-touch surface. Ans. 43
(citing Westerman i-f 43).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. We agree with and
adopt as our own the findings and reasoning of the Examiner. Like
Gillespie, Westerman teaches mechanisms for analyzing and responding to
user gesture inputs on a touchscreen display. See, e.g., Westerman Abstract,
Figs. 1, 16, i-fi-126, 130. Westerman also teaches calculating velocity, major
axis, and minor axis of such inputs. Westerman Fig. 36, i-fi-1130, 155-160,
233-235. Moreover, the combination of Gillespie and Westerman teaches
transferring function calls in response to gesture inputs. See Final Act. 24--
25; Ans. 38--43. Appellant fails to persuasively challenge the Examiner's
findings or explain why the claimed invention would not have been obvious
in view of the combined teachings of the references. We thus sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-9, 11-14, and
16-26, and reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 10, 15, and 27-29.
13
Appeal2014-008111
Application 13/251,152
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
14