Ex Parte HamadeneDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 7, 201612978608 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/978,608 12/26/2010 124176 7590 06/09/2016 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A./Motorola 1625 Radio Drive Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hafid Hamadene 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. l l 42.239US01 1498 EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2172 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/09/2016 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): pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAFID HAMADENE Appeal2014-007737 Application 12/978,608 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-007737 Application 12/978,608 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-19. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method for presenting to a user of an electronic device via a display screen of the electronic device visual feedback of a user interaction, when the device is at a limit of a requested function, the method comprising: detecting a gesture including a user interaction with the electronic device; associating the gesture with a function; determining whether the associated function has reached a limit which would preclude execution of the associated function; \~\rherein if the associated fi.1nction has not reached the limit which would preclude execution of the associated function, then executing the function associated with the detected gesture; and wherein if the associated function has reached the limit which would preclude execution of the associated function, then producing an image distortion proximate the user interaction. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lamiraux et al. (US 2008/0168349 A 1; July 10, 2008). 1 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-19. 2 Appeal2014-007737 Application 12/978,608 Appellant's Contentions 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because: First, scrolling as provided by Lamiraux et al., '349, contrary to the Examiner's suggestion does not represent a function that has reached a limit which would preclude execution of the associated function, where more specifically further scrolling is expressly allowed by the reference even after the end of the list has been encountered. As part of the further execution of the function scrolling, if and when the end of the list is encountered, the list continues to be allowed to scroll with a growing blank background appearing in place of the list of elements, as some of the last one or more elements are allowed to continue to scroll off the screen. This is not the same as a function that has reached a limit, whereby the further execution of the associated function is precluded, as the further execution is expressly allowed. App. Br. 5. 2. Further, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because: Still further, the alleged distortion in Lamiraux et al., '349, which is alleged to be equivalent to the claimed distortion is not distortion, nor is it an image distortion or an image distortion that can be said to be proximate the user interaction. Distortion is defined at Dictionary.com as being "an act or instance of distorting", where distort is defined at Dictionary.com as "to twist awry or out of shape; make crooked or deformed". The Examiner attempts to equate the shortening of a scroll bar indicator as being a form of distortion, but the length of the scroll bar indicator is in fact part of its normal functioning in so far as the length is associated with the partial display of a subset of an overall list or image. The length of the scroll bar indicator corresponds to an amount of displayed information relative to the overall length of the list or image, as well as potentially its proximate position of the currently displayed information within the overall size of the list or 3 Appeal2014-007737 Application 12/978,608 image. As such, a shortening or a lengthening of the scroll bar indicator is indicative of the amount of information in terms of more or less being currently displayed relative to the overall amount of information in a particular dimension in which scrolling can occur. Correspondingly, the shortening of the scroll bar indicator is not indicative of distortion, but is a normal expected function that indicates that less of the overall amount of the list or image is currently being displayed, which corresponds to the fact that some of end items have scrolled off the display and have been replaced with a blank background image portion. As such, the shortening of the scroll bar indicator is not distortion as suggested by the Examiner, but is part of its normal expected functioning. App. Br. 5---6. 3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, because: As such, not only does the reference fail to teach or suggest each and every feature of the claims, but the reference in fact teaches away from the features of the claims, as the reference extends the displayed information to include a blank border region into which the displaying of the same can purposely scroll or pan into, and which correspondingly precludes any limit precluding execution, and or correspondingly the any related claimed distortion that could be associated with attempting to extend beyond the noted limit and which could be associated with attempting to display of the same per the teachings of the present application. App. Br. 6-7, emphasis added. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated because Lamiraux fails to describe the limitations required by these claims? 4 Appeal2014-007737 Application 12/978,608 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contention (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. As to Appellant's above contention 1, we disagree. Appellant's argument relies on a misreading of Lamiraux. Contrary to Appellant's reading the blank background as part of the list of elements being scrolled and the list scrolling as lacking a limit, the plain reading of Lamiraux is that the end (i.e., limit) of the list has been reached and the background appears as an indication of such. Lamiraux at ,-r 501 states "a user can scroll through the list of items," and at ,-r 5 02 states "if the user scro Us to the top of the list and then continues to apply a scrolling gesture (e.g., 4324, FIG. 21C), background 4326-1 appears and the vertical bar 4320-1 may start to reduce in length to indicate to the user that the top of the list has been reached." Emphasis added. Further, Lamiraux at ,-r 502 describes this action as a "'rubber band-like' behavior at the terminus of lists." As to Appellant's above contention 2, we disagree. Appellant cites to Dictionary.com to define the claim term "distortion" (App. Br. 5) to establish that the Examiner is mistaken and "shortening" is not indicative of distortion (App. Br 6). Appellant overlooks that their Specification provides examples of distortion that explicitly include "stretching" and "compressing" as the form of distortion. [I]f the corresponding function (i.e. zooming in) has reached the limit which would preclude further execution of the function associated with the gesture, an image distortion in the form of a stretching can occur between the points of user interaction. In front of the spreading motion, a distortion in the form of a compression can also occur. 5 Appeal2014-007737 Application 12/978,608 Spec. 12:4-7, emphases added. We conclude that Lamiraux's reducing the vertical bar in length is a compression type distortion as contemplated by Appellant. We also note that these disclosed examples of distortion include further specific locational limitations for the distortion (i.e., "between the points of user interaction" and "[i]n front of the spreading motion") which limitations are not required in appealed claim 1. Rather, claim 1 more broadly recites a distortion location of "proximate the user interaction." As to Appellant's above contention 3, we disagree. Appellant's "teaching away" argument (an issue in 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections) is not relevant to the anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) that is before us. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-19 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (2) Claims 1-19 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1-19 is affirmed. 6 Appeal2014-007737 Application 12/978,608 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 2 2 As the Examiner has shown that all the claims are unpatentable, we do not also reject Appellant's claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by the following references. Wilson et al. (US 8,624,925 B2; Filed Oct.16, 2009) Abstract. Akella (US 8,812,985 B2; Filed Oct. 30, 2009) Abstract; col. 7, lines 14--16. Kwak et al. (US 2009/0070711 Al; Pub. Mar. 12, 2009) Abstract; Fig. 12 & Fig. 13; Paragraphs 162-163, 166-167, and particularly 169. 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation