Ex Parte Miyazawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

13242129 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/242, 129 09/23/2011
60803 7590
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
620 Herndon Parkway
Suite 320
Herndon, VA 20170
09/21/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yusuke Miyazawa
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.
1946-0480 1902
EXAMINER
AKHA V ANNIK, MOHAMMAD H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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 YUSUKE MIY AZA WA, TETSUO IKEDA,
FUMINORI HOMMA, REIKO MIYAZAKI,
KEN MIYASHITA, and SHOICHIRO MORIY A
Appeal2015-007347
Application 13/242, 129
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-007347
Application 13/242, 129
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 5-13, 15-17, 20-28, 30, 31, and 35, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "[a] method ... for modifying an
image." (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
displaying an image, wherein the image comprises a portion
of an object that can be scrolled in at least two substantially op-
posite directions, wherein the portion of the object comprised in
the image is a first portion of the object;
determining ifthe image displays an edge of the object within
the displayed portion of the object;
detecting a scrolling movement of an operating member in a
direction with respect to the edge, wherein the detected scrolling
movement is a first detected scrolling movement;
scrolling the object in the direction of the detected scrolling
movement up to the edge of the object;
presenting visual feedback at the edge of the object in re-
sponse to said scrolling reaching the edge of the object under
command of the operating member, wherein said scrolling reach-
ing the edge of the object comprises over-scrolling past the edge
of the object, wherein said presenting visual feedback compris-
ing modifying graphical attributes of the image at or near the dis-
played edge based on a distance of the over-scrolling past the
1 Appellants identify Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2015-007347
Application 13/242, 129
edge of the object by the operating member, wherein the present-
ing visual feedback at the edge of the object under control of the
operating member is before the operating member releases con-
tact with the object;
detecting a second scrolling movement of the member in a
direction with respect to the edge;
determining a distance of the second detected scrolling move-
ment;
identifying a second portion of the object based on the deter-
mined distance;
displaying the second portion not including the edge of the
object if a distance between the start of the displayed portion of
the object and the edge of the object is greater than or equal to
the determined distance; and
displaying the second portion including the edge of the object
if the distance between the start of the displayed portion of the
object and the edge of the object is less than the determined dis-
tance and modifying graphical attributes of the second portion at
or near the edge of the object as a result of the second scrolling
movement.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 5-13, 15-17, 20-28, 30, 31, and35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kwak et al. (US 2009/0070711 Al;
pub. Mar. 12, 2009). (See Final Act. 3-7.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants pursue one argument on appeal, that Kwak does not
describe "the presenting visual feedback at the edge of the object under
control of the operating member [being] before the operating member
releases contact with the object." (See App. Br. 14--20; Reply Br. 4--7.)
3
Appeal2015-007347
Application 13/242, 129
The Examiner found that Kwak' s Figures 6, 7, and 12, and the related
text, disclose this feature. (See Final Act. 3--4.)
Appellants argue this finding is in error because the cited portions of
the reference describe manipulation of the contents of the screen with a
"flick." (App. Br. 15-17.) Specifically, Appellants argue that "Kwak
clearly does not disclose the claim recitations that 'the presenting visual
feedback at the edge of the object under control of the operating member is
before the operating member releases contact with the object."' (Reply Br.
4, emphasis omitted.)
The Examiner responds that "it is clear in at least the depiction of
figure 7 that a user's finger is still in contact with the object while the visual
feedback is displayed." (Ans. 9.)
We do not agree that Figure 7, reproduced below, shows the user's
finger in contact with the object when the visual feedback is displayed.
l...~ST !TEll
OF LIST --
FIG. 7
Annunciator
([] TITLE
CD Cont er;t ·1
Q)Content 5
Figure 7 shows Kwak's "visual feedback method with respect to the reading
of the end of a displayed menu list in a flicking operation." (Kwak f 25.)
Because the finger in Figure 7 is shown in outline, with the screen
visible through it, we conclude that the finger and the associated arrows and
text ("FLICKING UP") merely illustrate the method and direction of the
4
Appeal2015-007347
Application 13/242, 129
"flick," not that the finger is touching the screen at the conclusion of the
scrolling. We thus decline to adopt the Examiner's findings that "it is clear
in at least the depiction of figure 7 that a user's finger is still in contact with
the object while the visual feedback is displayed" and that "it is clearly
depicted in figure 7 that a user's finger is maintaining contact with the object
while overscrolling and visual feedback is presented accordingly and
concurrently." (Ans. 9.)
As a fallback, the Examiner finds that "[a]lso, ifthe user begins
scrolling when a list is already at or near the end, then visual feedback must
be presented while the user's finger is performing the drag or scroll
operation." (Ans. 9.) We do not agree that such behavior is inherent2
because (a) Kwak only describes use of the visual effect in the context of
"flicking," "which is a user operation discriminated from dragging" (Kwak
i-f 131 ), and (b) the Examiner's analysis would require that the list start
moving and reach an edge before the flick gesture is completed, and the
reference is silent about the relationship between the flicking and the list
movement. 3
Because we do not agree that Kwak describes that "the presenting
visual feedback at the edge of the object under control of the operating
member is before the operating member releases contact with the object,"
2 "Inherency ... may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
not sufficient." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
3 We do not consider, because the issue is not before us, whether it would
have been obvious to apply an effect like that disclosed in Kwak in the
context of a dragging or scrolling operation.
5
Appeal2015-007347
Application 13/242, 129
we decline to sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejections of claims 1, 5-13,
15-17, 20-28, 30, 31, and 35.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 5-13, 15-17, 20-28, 30, 31, and 35 are
reversed.
REVERSED
6