Ex Parte Chakirov

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2016

13460270 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

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.
29717-1179001 5738
EXAMINER
MERKOULOVA, OLGA VLADIMIROVNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/460,270 04/30/2012
94149 7590 11/29/2016
Fish & Richardson P.C. (Blackberry)
P.O.Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Martin CHAKIROV
11/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN CHAKIROV
Appeal 2015-006327
Application 13/460,270
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7—14, and 16—23, which are all
the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest is identified as BlackBerry Limited. (App. Br.
2.) Throughout this opinion we refer to the corrected Appeal Brief filed
December 29, 2014.
Appeal 2015-006327
Application 13/460,270
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention relates to a method and device for processing
user input to display a display object representative of an action that will
subsequently be performed on continuation of the user input. (Abstract.)
The display object can also appear at a different rate from a rate of
performance of the user input. (Abstract.)
Independent claims 1 and 13, reproduced below, are exemplary of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for generating display data, the method
comprising:
detecting user input via an input interface, the user input
comprising a first input; and
operating a processor in communication with the input
interface to:
in response to detecting user input, generate display data
comprising a display object for display by a display device,
wherein the display object symbolizes an action that will
subsequently be performed by the processor on completion of
the first input; and
output the display data on the display device whilst a
common initial input of the first input is being detected;
determine whether completion of the first input has
occurred; and
perform the action only if completion of the first input is
detected;
wherein the first input comprises a first additional input
which is detectable by the processor after the common initial
input,
wherein the display object is indicative of the first
additional input which must be detected by the processor for it
to determine that the user input comprises the first input.
2
Appeal 2015-006327
Application 13/460,270
13. A method for generating display data, the method
comprising:
detecting user input via an input interface, the user input
comprising a first input; and
operating a processor in communication with the input
interface to:
in response to detecting user input, generate display data
comprising a display object for display by a display device,
wherein the display object symbolizes content that will
subsequently be output by the processor on completion of the
user input; and
output the display data on the display device whilst a
common initial input of the first input is being detected in such
a way that the display object is caused to appear on the display
device as the common initial input is being detected, wherein
the rate at which the display object appears is different to the
rate of detection of the common initial input,
wherein the first input comprises a first additional input
which is detectable by the processor after the common initial
input,
wherein the display object is indicative of the first
additional input which must be detected by the processor for it
to determine that the user input comprises the first input.
Rejections2
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Lee et al. (US 2010/0313158 Al; pub. Dec. 9, 2010) (“Lee”)
and Anzures et al. (US 2007/0150826 Al; pub. June 28, 2007) (“Anzures”)
(Final Act. 6—11.)
2 The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). (See Final Act.
2—3.) Drawing objections are a petitionable matter, and, thus, are not
addressed herein. See'll C.F.R. § 1.113(a).
3
Appeal 2015-006327
Application 13/460,270
Claims 14 and 16—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Lee, Anzures, and BianRosa et al. (US 2013/0179812 Al; pub.
July 11, 2013) (“BianRosa”). (Final Act. 11—12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (App. Br. 9—34; Reply Br. 1—3). We summarily sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 14, 20, and 23, as
well as dependent claims 16 and 17, based on Lee, Anzures, and BianRosa,
because Appellant does not present arguments against the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims (App. Br. 9).3 See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“If an appellant fails to present
arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection
— the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection.”).
With respect to the remaining claims, we agree with Appellant’s
contention the Examiner has not shown the combination of Lee, Anzures,
and BianRosa teaches or suggests the following limitations recited in
independent claims 13, 19, and 22:
output [ting] the display data on the display device whilst a
common initial input of the first input is being detected in such
a way that the display object is caused to appear on the display
device as the common initial input is being detected, wherein
the rate at which the display object appears is different to the
rate of detection of the common initial input.
3 Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
4
Appeal 2015-006327
Application 13/460,270
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions as to claims 1, 4, 5, 7—12,
18, and 21. For claims 1, 4, 5, 7—12, 18, and 21, we adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this
appeal is taken and in the Answer (see Ans. 2-4, 6—7).
We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for
emphasis as follows.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7—12, 18, and 21
Appellant argues Lee fails to teach operating a processor in
communication with an input interface to: “in response to detecting user
input, generate display data comprising a display object for display by a
display device, wherein the display object symbolizes an action that will
subsequently be performed by the processor on completion of the first
input,” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 9-16; Reply Br. 1—3.) Appellant
contends Lee’s “undo signal” is not a display object because the undo signal
is not displayed on the display screen. (App. Br. 13—15 (citing Lee Tflf 126,
133, 142, undo signal 1550).) The Examiner, however, also finds that Lee’s
handler and progress bar are displayed objects “symbolizing] an action of
‘TEXT EDITING’ that will be subsequently performed if a user will slide
his/her finger right or left long enough to complete the first input and . . .
delete or restore at least one character from the text shown on the display.”
(Ans. 3 (citing Lee Figs. 6A—6D, progress bar 1540, handler 1541); see also
Final Act. 8 (citing Lee Figs. 7C—7D).) Lee teaches the handler and
progress bar are displayed in association with a user’s text input and
deletion. (See Lee 140, 142—143.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Lee’s handler and progress bar symbolize, to a user, a text editing action
5
Appeal 2015-006327
Application 13/460,270
that will subsequently be performed by the processor on completion of the
user’s slide/drag input. (Ans. 3—4.)
Appellant responds that Lee’s “progress bar 1540 and the handler
1541 do not symbolize a next action that will occur but merely allow a user
to control the extent of a current action’’ and “merely provide a tool for the
user to delete text.” (Reply Br. 2—3 (emphasis added).) Appellant does not
provide persuasive evidence that Lee’s text editing action is performed prior
to receiving the input from the user that causes the deletion or addition of
text. Moreover, claim 1 ’s requirement that an action will subsequently be
performed by the processor on completion of the first input includes
performing the action at the time of completion of the first input. We agree
with the Examiner that Lee’s handler and progress bar symbolize a text
deletion or reinstatement action will occur upon receiving the user’s
slide/drag input on the touch screen. (Ans. 3—4 (citing Figs. 6A—6D).)
Additionally, Figures 7A—7D and paragraphs 148—149 of Fee describe text
addition and deletion performed on completion of a user’s drag input that
drags the handler. (See Fee Figs. 7A—7D, || 148—149 (“ The user may touch
and drag. . . the handler 1641 to the left hand side. Then, the controller 180
may continuously and sequentially delete the inputted data.'” (emphasis
added)).)
Appellant also contends Fee’s handler and progress bar are not a
display object in response to detecting user input as recited in claim 1
because the handler and progress bar “are not presented in response to the
drag gesture disclosed in Lee (which is being offered as the claimed first
touch).” (Reply Br. 2.) We do not agree. Appellant’s argument does not
address the Examiner’s findings that Fee’s handler and progress bar are
6
Appeal 2015-006327
Application 13/460,270
displayed in response to detecting user’s initial touch input of a progress bar
display signal (1530). (Ans. 4; see also Lee 140-141 (“in a case the user
uses a pointing device to input a progress bar display signal 1530 on the
touch screen, the controller 180 may display a progress bar 1540 including
a handler 1541 on the touch screen.” (emphasis added)).)
Appellant additionally argues Lee does not “output the display data on
the display device whilst a common initial input of the first input is being
detected, . . . wherein the first input comprises a first additional input which
is detectable by the processor after the common initial input,” as recited in
claim 1. (App. Br. 16.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that a user’s drag input is a first
additional input detectable by the processor, after a common initial input
including the user’s initial touch input (at progress bar display signal 1530).
(Final Act. 7-8 (citing Lee Figs. 6C-6D, 7C-7D, H 141-142, 148); see also
Ans. 4.) Appellant’s arguments have not rebutted the Examiner’s specific
findings regarding Fee’s initial touch and subsequent drag inputs, with
which we agree.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fee and Anzures. Thus, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1, and, for the same reasons, the rejection of claims 4,
5, and 7—12, which are not argued separately. For the same reasons, we
sustain the rejection of independent claims 18 and 21 argued for
substantially the same reasons as claim 1. (App. Br. 24—26, 29-31.)
7
Appeal 2015-006327
Application 13/460,270
Claims 13, 19, and 22
Independent claim 13 recites, inter alia, operating a processor in
communication with an input interface to:
. . . output the display data on the display device whilst a
common initial input of the first input is being detected in such
a way that the display object is caused to appear on the display
device as the common initial input is being detected, wherein
the rate at which the display object appears is different to the
rate of detection of the common initial input.
The Examiner finds Lee teaches a display object appearing on a display
device as a common initial input is being detected. (Ans. 5 (citing Lee Ligs.
6A—6D); final Act. 11 (citing Lee ]Hf 141—146).) The Examiner further
finds Anzures teaches a rate at which a display object appears can be set at
any suitable rate in relation to a rate of detection of a common initial input.
(Ans. 5 (citing Anzures Tig. 2, display visual cues of unlock action 204,
contact touch sensitive display 206; 1 50); see also Ans. 6 (citing Anzures
Ligs. 2, 4, detect contact with touch sensitive display 208, unlock image
402).)
Appellant argues neither Lee nor Anzures discloses a rate at which a
display object appears is different from a rate of detection of the common
initial input, as required by independent claim 13. (App. Br. 22—24.)
Appellant contends Anzures at most describes transitioning a touch screen
device from one state (lock) to another (unlock) at any suitable rate, which is
different from a display object appearing at a different rate from a rate of
input detection. (App. Br. 23—24 (citing Anzures Tig. 2, | 50).)
We agree with Appellant the Examiner has not shown that Anzures
teaches the claimed rate at which the display object appears is different from
the rate of detection of the common initial input as recited in claim 13. The
8
Appeal 2015-006327
Application 13/460,270
cited portions of Anzures disclose a user input drags an unlock image on a
touch screen and transitions the device to an unlock state at any suitable rate
(see Anzures Figs. 2, 4, | 50), but do not teach two different rates as
claimed, and do not disclose a rate at which a display object/unlock image
appears is different from a rate of detection of user’s input. (App. Br. 23—
24.)
Additionally, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
provided reasoning as to why it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill to modify Lee based on Anzures to obtain the claimed different rates
that are not disclosed by either Lee or Anzures. (App. Br. 24.) Although the
Examiner states the reasoning for combining Lee and Anzures “is provided
in relation to claim 1” (Ans. 5), the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based on
Lee and Anzures does not account for the different rates recited in claim 13.
The Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
Examiner’s finding that the references teach or make obvious the claimed
rate at which the display object appears is different from the rate of detection
of the common initial input, as recited in claims 13, 19, and 22. Therefore,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lee and Anzures.
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 19 and 22 present the same
issues as claim 13. App. Br. 26—29, 31—34. Thus, for the same reasons, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 22 as obvious over Lee,
Anzures, and BianRosa.
9
Appeal 2015-006327
Application 13/460,270
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7—12, 14, 16—18, 20,
21, and 23 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13, 19, and 22 is reversed.
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
10