Ex Parte LIRA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2017

13731351 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2017)

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.
13/731,351 12/31/2012 LUIGI LIRA 19487.193.1.1.8 1088
107193 7590 02/15/2017
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2017 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 2016-003573
Application 13/731,351
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
decision rejecting claims 13—23, 25—34, 36-41, and 43—49, all pending
claims of the application.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. Appeal
Br. 2.
2 Claims 1—12, 24, 35, and 42 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 15—22 (Claims
App’x).
Appeal 2016-003573
Application 13/731,351
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the application relates to a viewing and
navigation aid for displaying information on an electronic device having
limited display capability. Spec. I.3 Claims 13, 27, and 36 are independent.
Claims 13, 16, and 17 are illustrative and are reproduced below:
13. A method comprising:
displaying, on a touchscreen display, a first portion of
content, wherein the content comprises a plurality of portions
including the first portion and a second portion;
detecting, using at least one processor, a touch input
provided by way of the touchscreen display, the touch input
comprising a touch-and-drag input within the contentfrom a first
point to a second point;
positioning, in response to the detected touch input, a
viewable portion of the content away from the first portion to
display the second portion; and
animating the positioning of the viewable portion to create
an appearance of motion.
16. The method of claim 13, wherein animating the
positioning of the viewable portion to create an appearance of
motion comprises displaying a line drawn from the first portion
to the second portion.
17. The method of claim 13, wherein animating the
positioning of the viewable portion to create an appearance of
3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed
Dec. 31, 2012 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed
Mar. 2, 2015; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Aug. 24, 2015; (4) the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed Dec. 17, 2015; and (5) the Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”) filed Feb. 17, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-003573
Application 13/731,351
motion comprises displaying a reference marker moving from
the first portion to the second portion.
Appeal Br. 15—16 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal
includes:
Davis et al. (“Davis”) US 2002/0135602 A1 Sept. 26, 2002
Himmel et al. (“Himmel”) US 2002/0186251 Al Dec. 12, 2002
Hinckley et al. US 6,707,449 B2 Mar. 16, 2004
(“Hinckley”)
REJECTIONS
Claims 13—17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26—34, 36-41, and 46-49 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Himmel. Final Act. 3—11.
Claims 18, 21, and 43—45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Himmel and Davis. Final Act. 11—13.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Himmel and Hinckley. Final Act. 13—14.
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 2016-003573
Application 13/731,351
ISSUES
1. Does the Examiner err in finding Himmel discloses “detecting . . .
a touch input. . . comprising a touch-and-drag input within the content from
a first point to a second point,” as recited in claim 13?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding Himmel discloses “displaying a
reference marker moving from the first portion to the second portion,” as
recited in claim 17?
3. Does the Examiner err in finding Himmel discloses “displaying a
line drawn from the first portion to the second portion,” as recited in claim
16?
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102: Claims 13-15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26-34, 36-41, and46-49
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 in light of the
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. 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. 3—14) and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(Ans. 2—5). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and
we highlight the following for emphasis.
In rejecting claim 13 as anticipated by Himmel, the Examiner finds
Himmel’s disclosure of slider 140 moving along scroll bar 120 to change a
viewable portion of content discloses “detecting ... a touch input. . .
comprising a touch-and-drag input within the content from a first point to a
second point,” as recited in claim 13. Ans. 2—3.
4
Appeal 2016-003573
Application 13/731,351
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because the Examiner’s
interpretation of the claim term “content” to include slider 140 is “an
unreasonably broad interpretation” and is “not consistent with the meaning
of the term in the art as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in light
of the specification.” Reply Br. 3.
We find this argument unpersuasive because Appellant fails to
establish the Examiner’s interpretation is not the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellant’s Specification. See In re Am. Acad.
ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under a broadest
reasonable interpretation, the words of the claim must be given their plain
meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2004). The plain meaning of a term is the ordinary and customary meaning
given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir.
2010). The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary
meaning may be rebutted by Appellant clearly setting forth a different
definition of the term in the specification. In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Here, Appellant argues the Specification “clearly indicates that
‘content’ refers to navigable information, such as a website, in a display.”
Reply Br. 4. In support, Appellant cites the following portion of the
Specification:
Referring to Fig. 11, a procedure 1100 for supporting
navigation on a display includes providing a navigation control
operable to change a viewable portion of a page of information
on a display from a first view to a second view (step 1105),
permitting operation of the navigation control to change the
5
Appeal 2016-003573
Application 13/731,351
display from the first view to the second view (step 1110), and
animating the display to create an appearance of motion as the
viewable portion of the page of information changes from the
first view to the second view (step 1115).
Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. 9:7—12).
As an initial matter we note the cited portion of the Specification fails
to mention the word content and therefore Appellant fails to establish the
Specification clearly sets forth a different definition of the term “content.”
Morris, 111 F.3d at 1054. Also, we find nothing in the portion of the
Specification cited by Appellant that is inconsistent with the Examiner’s
interpretation of content to include slider 140.
Accordingly, because Appellant provides no express definition from
the Specification and also fails to establish the Examiner’s interpretation of
“content” is inconsistent with the Specification {Chef America, Inc. 358 F.3d
at 1372) we find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s
definition is unreasonably broad.
Next, Appellant argues “the Examiner’s interpretation of ‘content’ is
contradicted by the Examiner’s own interpretation of ‘first portion of
content’ and ‘second portion of content,’ as recited in the claims.” Reply
Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant argues “the Examiner acknowledges that
‘content’ refers to page/document content displayed within a window, rather
than the window itself or the scroll bar, and errs in later asserting that ‘the
content’ also refers to the window and slider.” Id.
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because the Examiner
interprets content to include both page/document content and the slider and
scroll bar and as discussed above, Appellant fails to establish that the
Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad.
6
Appeal 2016-003573
Application 13/731,351
Appellant argues “the Examiner’s interpretation of ‘content’ is
unreasonable when considering the claim as a whole.” Reply Br. 4—5.
Appellant, however, does not provide persuasive evidence or argument to
support their position, but merely asserts the Examiner’s interpretation of
content is unreasonable because the “claims are directed to allowing users to
perform touch-and-drag inputs within a viewable portion of content to
navigate to other portions of the content.” Reply Br. 4—5.
In light of the Examiner’s reasonable interpretation of the claimed
content, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Himmel’s window,
including the slider or scroll bar, discloses content. Ans. 3 (citing, e.g.,
Himmel Fig. 1). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Himmel’s
positioning of a viewable portion of the content away from the first portion
to display the second portion, in response to the detected slider/scroll bar
input within the content from a first point to a second point, anticipates all
the limitations of independent claim 13. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2—5 (citing
Himmel Tflf 6, 17, 19, 28, 30, 35, Figs. 1, 2A, and 7).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
of claim 13. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of
independent claims 27 and 36, which are argued with independent claim 13,
for similar reasons. Appeal Br. 10. Dependent claims 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23,
26, 28—34, 37-41, and 46-49, are not argued separately and fall with their
respective independent claims. Appeal Br. 7—11.
35 U.S.C. § 102: Claim 17
In rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), the Examiner relies on
Himmel to disclose “displaying a reference marker moving from the first
7
Appeal 2016-003573
Application 13/731,351
portion to the second portion,” as recited in claim 17. Final Act. 4 (citing
Himmel 130, Fig. 3B).
Appellant contends the Examiner errs because the cited portions of
Himmel “merely show a dashed line used for illustration purposes within the
patent application” and the dashed line “is not actually displayed to a user
within the window during the scrolling operation.” Appeal Br. 10—11.
We agree with Appellant’s argument. In short, the Examiner fails to
make findings, supported by the evidence, that Himmel teaches all of the
limitations of claim 17. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 17.
35U.S.C.§ 102: Claim 16
In rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), the Examiner relies on
Himmel to disclose “displaying a line drawn from the first portion to the
second portion,” as recited in claim 16. Final Act. 4 (citing Himmel
Fig. 3B).
Appellant contends the Examiner errs because “the lines and arrows in
FIG. 3B of Himmel are for illustration purposes within the patent application
and do not represent what is shown to a user of the invention disclosed in
Himmel.” Appeal Br. 11.
We agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner fails to make
findings, supported by the evidence, that Himmel teaches all of the
limitations of claim 16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 16.
8
Appeal 2016-003573
Application 13/731,351
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 18, 21, 25, and 43—45
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 18, 21, 25, and 43—45, Appellant reiterates the same patentability
arguments presented against claim 13. App. Br. 11—12. For the same
reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13—15, 19, 20, 22,
23, 26-34, 36-41, and 46-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18, 21, 25, and
43—45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
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
9