Ex Parte LIRADownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 201713731364 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/731,364 12/31/2012 LUIGI LIRA 19487.193.1.1.9 6211 107193 7590 03/20/2017 Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook 1010 North 500 East Suite 210 North Salt Lake, UT 84054 EXAMINER CHU, DAVID H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2017 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): docketing@kjpip.com gj olley @ kj pip. com tkusitor@kjpip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUIGI LIRA1 Appeal 2017-000930 Application 13/731,364 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 13, 14, 17—27, 30-38, and 41—48.2 This appeal is related to an appeal (2015-002217, decided August 17, 2016) for co-pending application 12/963,444 and an appeal (2015-001776, decided August 17, 2016) for co-pending application 13/731,382. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. See Appeal Brief 2. 2 Claims 1—12, 15, 16, 28, 29, 39, and 40 are cancelled. Final Act. 1. Appeal 2017-000930 Application 13/731,364 STATEMENT OF THE CASE According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to changing a position of a visible portion of a page of information on a display if an input motion exceeds a threshold. Alternatively, the position of the visible portion of the page of information on the display is constrained if the motion does not exceed the threshold. Spec. 1—2.3 Claims 13, 26, and 38 are independent. Claim 13 is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics: 13. A method comprising: displaying, on a touchscreen display, a first view of content; detecting a motion of an object on or near the touchscreen display, wherein detecting the motion comprises detecting a vertical component of the motion and detecting a horizontal component of the motion; repositioning, during the detected motion, a viewable portion of the content from the first view towards a second view of the content; determining whether the horizontal component meets a predetermined horizontal threshold; in response to a determination that the horizontal component does not meet the predetermined horizontal threshold, preventing horizontal movement of the viewable portion as the viewable portion is repositioned from the first view towards the second view; and 3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the following documents: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed December 31, 2012 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed October 9, 2014; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed July 9, 2015, and amended Brief filed January 22, 2016; (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 11, 2016; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed October 11, 2016. 2 Appeal 2017-000930 Application 13/731,364 in response to a determination that the horizontal component does meet the predetermined horizontal threshold, permitting two-dimensional movement of the viewable portion as the viewable portion is repositioned from the first view towards the second view according to the vertical component and the horizontal component of the detected motion. Appeal Br. 3 (Claims App’x). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal includes: Montagna et al. US 4 (“Montagna”) Eng et al. (“Eng”) US 5 Brewer et al. (“Brewer”) US 5 Naughton et al. US 5 (“Naughton”) ,899,292 Feb. 6, 1990 ,638,092 June 10, 1997 ,880,722 Mar. 9, 1999 ,886,697 Mar. 23, 1999 REJECTIONS Claims 13, 14, 17—20, 22—27, 30-38, 41, and 43—48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Naughton, Eng, and Brewer. Final Act. 2—7. Claims 21 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Naughton, Eng, Brewer, and Montagna. Final Act. 8. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and issues raised by Appellant. We have not considered other possible issues that have not been raised by Appellant and which are, therefore, not before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014). 3 Appeal 2017-000930 Application 13/731,364 ISSUES 1. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Naughton, Eng, and Brewer teaches or suggests “detecting a vertical component of the motion,” as recited in claim 13? 2. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Naughton, Eng, and Brewer teaches or suggests “determining whether the horizontal component meets a predetermined horizontal threshold,” as recited in claim 13? 3. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Naughton, Eng, and Brewer is proper because Brewer is analogous art? ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellant’s contentions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—7) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—3). We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for emphasis. Issue 1 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Naughton teaches or suggests “detecting a vertical component of the motion,” as recited in claim 13 because “nowhere does Naughton disclose an example of navigational panning in the vertical dimension.” Appeal Br. 10. 4 Appeal 2017-000930 Application 13/731,364 We find this argument unpersuasive because we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Naughton suggests panning in both a horizontal and vertical direction. Ans. 2. Naughton discloses tracking user input in two- dimensions. Naughton 15:51—54. The user input may be provided by a user’s finger touching a touch screen display 37 or by mouse, trackball, or joystick. Naughton 15:56. Naugton further discloses a user panning though a space by “placing a finger on the background image of a space displayed on the touch display screen 37 and sliding the finger in the desired direction of movement.” Naughton 16:46-48 (emphasis added). Panning in computer graphics is “a display method in which a viewing window on the screen scans horizontally or vertically, like a camera, to bring offscreen extensions of the current image smoothly into view.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 389 (5th ed. 2002). Panning, therefore, suggests either vertical movement or horizontal movement, so long as the movement brings offscreen extensions of the current image smoothly into view. Although Naughton provides an example of horizontal panning, Naughton does not limit the panning to horizontal panning. Naughton 16:56—64. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that by discussing movement of the user input device in vertical and horizontal directions in conjunction with the description of panning (Ans. 2—3), Naugthon suggests detecting a vertical component of the motion of the user’s finger near touch screen display 37. Issue 2 The Examiner relies on Eng to teach or suggest “determining whether the horizontal component meets a predetermined horizontal threshold.” Final Act. 3; Ans. 3 (citing Eng 15:13—16, 15:19-45). Specifically, the 5 Appeal 2017-000930 Application 13/731,364 Examiner finds Eng’s disclosure of “[mjoving the cursor off the left-right or up-down axis when a finger movement that is ‘slightly larger’ has been detected” teaches or suggests the claimed predetermined horizontal threshold. Final Act. 3. In response, Appellant argues Eng’s discussion of a “‘slightly larger’ movement refers to the fact that, because the gains of the movements in the nonpredicted direction are penalized, larger movements in the non-predicted direction are necessary to achieve the same net effect as movements in the predicted direction” and so Eng fails to teach or suggest “a predetermined horizontal threshold,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 12. We find this argument unpersuasive. In describing motion prediction for ensuring movement of a cursor in straight lines, Eng states, [t]he net effect is a detectable smoothing bias towards either left-right or up-down movement. This smoothing bias enables the user to easily move cursor 111 in straight lines along either left-right axis 121 or up-down axis 122 on screen 112. Once movement along left-right axis 121 or up-down axis 122 is detected, motion in directions other than along the predicted direction is penalized. As a result, slightly larger finger movement along a non-predicted direction is required to change the direction of cursor movement from the predicted direction. Eng 15:6-15. As described above, once movement in a vertical direction is detected in Eng, movement in a horizontal direction is penalized by requiring slightly larger finger movement along the horizontal direction to change the direction of cursor movement in the horizontal direction. That is, Eng suggests that when the horizontal finger movement exceeds a threshold (by being slightly larger than some predetermined finger movement), horizontal 6 Appeal 2017-000930 Application 13/731,364 movement of the cursor is allowed. Eng 15:6—15. We, therefore, find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Eng’s requiring a slightly larger horizontal finger movement when moving the cursor along the up-down axis suggests “determining whether the horizontal component meets a predetermined horizontal threshold,” as recited in claim 13. Ans. 3—A. Issue 3 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Naughton, Eng, and Brewer because Brewer is non-analogous art. Appeal Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant argues Brewer is not reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Appellant was involved because Brewer “does not relate to the content navigation of the claims.” Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5. To qualify as prior art a reference must “qualify as ‘analogous art’ by satisfying one of the following conditions: (1) the reference must be from the same field of endeavor; or (2) the reference must be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” K—TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Examiner finds that Brewer is in the same field of endeavor. Final Act. 4. Appellant, however, merely argues “the disclosure of Brewer does not relate to the content navigation of the claims” (Appeal Br. 13), i.e., Brewer allegedly is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Appellant is involved and, therefore, fails the second condition to qualify as analogous art. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s finding that Brewer is within the 7 Appeal 2017-000930 Application 13/731,364 same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ans. 4. Moreover, despite Appellant’s contentions, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Brewer is also reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved because Brewer also relates to solving the problem of “calculating the user’s intended movement of a cursor.” Ans. 4; see also Brewer 5:55—60. Accordingly, because we agree with the Examiner that Brewer satisfies at least one of the first analogous art condition (with unrebutted findings) and the second analogous art condition (with unpersuasive arguments), we are not persuaded Brewer is non-analogous art or that the Examiner improperly combined Naughton, Eng, and Brewer. We sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 13. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 26 and 38, which are argued with independent claim 13, for similar reasons. Appeal Br. 12—18. Dependent claims 14, 17—20, 22—25, 27, 30-37, 41, and 43—48, are either nominally argued separately, or are not argued separately, and fall with their respective independent claims. Appeal Br. 7—11. Claims 21 and 42 In arguing claims 21 and 42, Appellant repeats the substance of the arguments made for claim 13. Appeal Br. 14. As discussed above we find these arguments to be unpersuasive. Appellant contends Montagna fails to remedy the deficiencies of the other prior art references. We find this contention unpersuasive of error because Appellant does not identify error in the rejection of claim 13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 21 and 42. 8 Appeal 2017-000930 Application 13/731,364 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13, 14, 17—27, 30-38, and 41^18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation