Ex Parte Blumenberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

13251146 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/251,146 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.
P5040USC4/63266-5580US 8386
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
Appeal2014-007685
Application 13/251,1461
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 1-12, 14--17, and 21-25.2 No other
claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 4.
2 An oral hearing was held May 16, 2016.
Appeal2014-007685
Application 13/251,146
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--4 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below:
1. A method performed by an electronic device having a
display of multiple views of a software application, the method
compnsmg:
in response to a user input comprising two or more
concurrent finger touch inputs, transferring a rotation transform
function call through an application programming interface from
user interface software interacting with the software application
to a view, of the multiple views of the software application,
associated with the user input; and,
in accordance with the transferring of the rotation
transform function call, performing a rotation transform to rotate
the view of the multiple views of the software application.
2. The method of claim 1, including:
in response to the user input comprising two or more
concurrent finger touch inputs:
transferring a start rotation gesture function call
from the user interface software to the view of the software
application through the application programmmg
interface;
transferring a rotation gesture progress function call
from the user interface software to the view of the software
application through the application programmmg
interface; and
2
Appeal2014-007685
Application 13/251,146
transferring a rotation gesture end function call
from the user interface software to the view of the software
application through the application programmmg
interface.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the rotation transform
function call comprises information for minimum and maximum
degrees of rotation for the associated view.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the user input causes the
view to temporarily rotate past a maximum degree of rotation
prior to the view snapping back to the maximum degree of
rotation.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 21-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hotelling (US
2006/0026521 Al; pub. Feb. 2, 2006) and Russo (US 2007/0061126 Al;
pub. Mar. 15, 2007). Final Act. 2-12.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hotelling, Russo, and Gilboa (US 2007 /0013697
Al; pub. Jan. 18, 2007). Final Act. 13-14.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hotelling, Russo, and Gallo (US 7,013,435 B2;
iss. Mar. 14, 2006). Final Act. 14--15.
ISSUES
The issues in this appeal are:
(i) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Hotelling and Russo teaches or suggests "in response to a user input
comprising two or more concurrent finger touch inputs, transferring a
3
Appeal2014-007685
Application 13/251,146
rotation transform function call through an application programming
interface from user interface software interacting with the software
application to a view, of the multiple views of the software application,
associated with the user input," as recited in independent claim 1 and
similarly recited in independent claims 7 and 14;
(ii) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Hotelling and Russo teaches or suggests transferring the three function calls
recited in dependent claim 2;
(iii) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Hotelling, Russo, and Gilboa teaches or "wherein the rotation transform
function call comprises information for minimum and maximum degrees of
rotation for the associated view," as recited in dependent claim 3 and
similarly recited in dependent claims 9 and 16; and
(iv) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Hotelling, Russo, and Gallo teaches or "wherein the user input causes the
view to temporarily rotate past a maximum degree of rotation prior to the
view snapping back to the maximum degree of rotation," as recited in
dependent claim 4 and similarly recited in dependent claims 10 and 17.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5--8, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 21-25
Appellant acknowledges that Hotelling discloses a rotate gesture and a
rotating sequence, but argues that Hotelling does not teach or suggest
transferring "any function call" in response to a user input. App. Br. 13; see
also Reply Br. 2-7. Relying on a dictionary definition, Appellant argues
that the plain and ordinary meaning of "function call" to one of ordinary
4
Appeal2014-007685
Application 13/251,146
skill in the art at the time of the invention was "an invocation of a routine."
Id. at 17-18. Appellant also argues that Hotelling does not teach or suggest
transferring a rotation transform function call through an API from user
interface software to a view of a software application. Id. at 18-21.
Appellant further argues that even though Russo discloses a set of functions
that implement an API, Russo does not teach or suggest transferring a
function call through an API to a view of a software application. Id. at 21-
24.
The Examiner responds that the specification states that
"[t]ransferring the function calls or messages may include issuing, initiating,
invoking or receiving the function calls or messages." Ans. 5 (citing Spec. i-f
59) (emphasis removed). 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 rotation operation teaches "transferring a
rotation transform function call." Ans. 5. The Examiner also cites passages
from Hotelling that disclose that when a user performs a gesture such as to
rotate an object, a gestural operational program interprets the gesture
information and the object on the screen rotates. Id. at 8-10; see also Final
Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that Hotelling teaches transferring a
rotation transform function call from a user interface to a view of a software
application. Ans. 11-17; Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that Russo
teaches transferring a function call through an API, and that it would have
been obvious to combine Russo's teaching of an interface with Hotelling's
teachings. Ans. 18-22; Final Act. 3--4.
5
Appeal2014-007685
Application 13/251,146
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.
38--40. Hotelling teaches or suggests transferring a rotation function call as
claimed in that it teaches invoking a rotation routine in response to user
input. See, e.g., Hotelling Figs. 1, 2, 6A, 15A---C, i-fi-1 54, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65,
70, 85-88, 107-109. Hotelling teaches or suggests receiving a user's
rotation gesture, interpreting that gesture, and invoking a routine for rotating
a displayed object such as a volume knob or a map in response to the
rotation gesture. Id. Moreover, Russo teaches using an API in a computer
system that interprets user inputs such as for invoking a rotation function.
Russo Figs. 2, 6, lOA, lOB, i-fi-16, 7, 10, 11, 28-33, 35-38, 45-51. Russo
also describes the benefits of using such an interface for portable electronic
devices or other devices executing different applications. Id. i-fi-129, 30, 36.
Appellant attempts to individually distinguish Hotelling and Russo,
rather than addressing the combined teachings of the references. See App.
Br. 12-24. 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
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
6
Appeal2014-007685
Application 13/251,146
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 Russo's teaching
of an API with Hotelling's teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. As
taught or suggested by Russo, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
motivated to do so to provide the established functionality of an API-
providing the ability of various applications to interface with the system.
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, 7, and 14 and dependent claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, and 22-25, which
are not argued separately.
Obviousness rejection of claims 2, 8, and 21
In addition to its arguments regarding claim 1, Appellant argues that
Hotelling does not teach or suggest transferring the three types of gesture
function calls recited in claim 2 in response to a user input. 3 App. Br. 24--
3 In the section of the Appeal Brief specifically addressing dependent claim
2, Appellant cites the language of claim 2 and states that "[ c ]laims 7 and 14
recite similar features." App. Br. 24--25. Claims 7 and 14, however, are
independent claims that recite limitations similar to those of claim 1, not
claim 2. At the end of the same section, Appellant asserts that "claims 2, 9,
22 and 26 are patentable over the combination of Hotelling and Russo."
App. Br. 26. Claims 9 and 22 do not recite limitations similar to those of
7
Appeal2014-007685
Application 13/251,146
26; Reply Br. 8-9. Specifically, claim 2 recites transferring a start rotation
gesture function call, transferring a rotation gesture progress function call,
and transferring a rotation gesture end function call. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Hotelling teaches or suggests transferring the three
function calls. As explained above in connection with claim 1, Hotelling
teaches or suggests transferring function calls from a user interface to a view
of an application. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Hotelling also
teaches or suggests transferring start, progress, and end rotation function
calls. See Ans. 31-36. For example, Hotelling teaches a user applying two
fingers on a map displayed on a touch screen to initiate rotation, the user
rotating his fingers to continue the rotation, and the user lifting his fingers
off the touch screen to stop the rotation. Hotelling Figs. 15A-C, i-fi-160, 66,
72, 81, 99-101, 107-109. We, thus, sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 2, 8, and 21 in view of Hotelling and Russo.
Obviousness rejection of claims 3, 9, and 16
Appellant also raises an argument regarding the requirement in claims
3, 9, and 16 that the rotation transform function call comprise "information
for minimum and maximum degrees of rotation for the associated view."
Appellant maintains that Gilboa-which discloses that a shape can be
rotated 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees---does not teach a maximum degree of
rotation. App. Br. 28-29; see also Reply Br. 9-11. The Examiner observes
that the claim broadly recites "minimum and maximum degrees of rotation"
claim 2, and there is no claim 26. Claims 8 and 21, however, recite
limitations similar to those of claim 2. Accordingly, in our analysis, we
group claims 8 and 21 with claim 2.
8
Appeal2014-007685
Application 13/251,146
and does not specify any particular degree of rotation for either the
minimum or the maximum. Ans. 37-38. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that Gilboa teaches rotation angles that may be minimum and maximum
degrees of rotation, such as 0 and 270 degrees, respectively. Ans. 38-39
(citing Gilboa Fig. 14, i-fi-f 103, 104). We agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Hotelling, Russo, and Gilboa teaches or suggests the
invention recited in claims 3, 9, and 16. See Ans. 36-38; Final Act. 13-14.
Obviousness rejection of claims 4, 10, and 17
Claims 4, 10, and 17 require: "wherein the user input causes the view
to temporarily rotate past a maximum degree of rotation prior to the view
snapping back to the maximum degree of rotation." Appellant argues that
Gallo does not teach or suggest "the view snapping back to the maximum
degree of rotation." App. Br. 30-31. Specifically, Appellant argues that the
claim limitation requires stopping at the maximum degree of rotation while
Gallo teaches reversing the direction of rotation when a predetermined
rotation limit is reached and further moving away from the predetermined
rotation limit. Id. at 30; see also Reply Br. 12. The Examiner responds that
"maximum degree of rotation" includes any angle degree that is predefined.
Ans. 40. The Examiner finds that Gallo's disclosure of a bouncing back
feature teaches the claim limitation. Id. at 40-41.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Gallo discloses
rotating an object on a display in response to user inputs and imposing
constraints on that rotation. Gallo 11: 12-20. One of the constraints is a
"bouncing-back" feature in which rotation in a certain direction stops going
in that direction once a predetermined limit is reached. Id. at 12: 1-11.
9
Appeal2014-007685
Application 13/251,146
Gallo thus teaches that a user can cause rotation past a particular degree of
rotation and move back to that degree of rotation. We also note the similar
terminology used to describe the feature: Gallo calls it a "bouncing-back"
feature and the claim uses the phrase "snapping back." The degree of
rotation which is bounced-back to in Gallo is a maximum degree of rotation.
We thus agree with the Examiner that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim, Gallo teaches or suggests the disputed limitation
of claims 4, 10, and 17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12, 14--17, and 21-
25.
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
10