Ex Parte NurmiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201611019862 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111019,862 12/22/2004 Mikko A. Nurmi 100809 7590 08/02/2016 Core Wireless Licensing Ltd 5601 Granite Parkway Suite 1300 Plano, TX 75024 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. CW.2626.USUl 1977 EXAMINER FIBBI, CHRISTOPHER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2016 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): ipadmin-core@core-wireless.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MIKKO A. NURMI Appeal2015-002773 Application 11/019,862 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2015-002773 Application 11/019,862 Exemplary Claims 1. A method comprising: displaying a first position indicator in a scroll region on a display, corresponding to a first position of a first subset of graphical information; scrolling to a second subset of the graphical information in response to a signal; displaying, within the scroll region, the first position indicator and a second position indicator associated with the second subset of graphical information; and displaying, in response to the signal, a visual representation linking the first position indicator to the second position indicator, the visual representation indicating to a user that when the signal ends the first subset of graphical information will again be displayed. 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the visual representation comprises a resilient spring between the first and second position indicators. Rejections Claims 1 and 3-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez et al. (US 6,147,683; Nov. 14, 2000), Ullmann et al. (US 6,677,965 Bl; Jan. 13, 2004), and Fukui et al. (US 6,940,532 Bl; Sept. 6, 2005). Final Act. (Feb. 13, 2014) 2-10. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez, Ullmann, Fukui, and Torres et al. (US 5,550,969; Aug. 27, 1996). Final Act. 10. 2 Appeal2015-002773 Application 11/019,862 ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Martinez, Ullmann, and Fukui teaches or suggests "displaying, in response to the signal, a visual representation linking the first position indicator to the second position indicator, the visual representation indicating to a user that when the signal ends the first subset of graphical information will again be displayed," as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Martinez, Ullmann, and Fukui teaches or suggests "the visual representation comprises a resilient spring," as recited in claim 3? CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, AND 23-25 In the Examiner's rejection, claim 1 's first and second position indicators are respectively read on Martinez's marker 129B of a selection within a drop down menu and scroll box 340 for scrolling within the menu. Final Act. 3; see also Martinez col. 6, 11. 43-67 (describing Figs. 5-6). The marker 129B is placed within the menu's scroll bar. Martinez col. 6, 11. 63-67. Thus, even ifthe user scrolls away from the selection, such that the selection itself is no longer visible, the marker 129B remains visible and continues to indicate the selection's position. Id. Claim 1 's visual link ("visual representation ... ") is read on Ullmann's rubber band 42 as implemented by the Martinez-Ullmann-Fukui combination. Final Act. 3; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3. The rubber band 42 pulls a fixed button 51 to thereby scroll the corresponding display. Ullmann col. 5, 1. 43-col. 6, 1. 22. The rubber band 42 is in tum pulled by a pointer 201, thereby stretching between the button 51 and pointer 201. Id. at col. 5, 11. 3 Appeal2015-002773 Application 11/019,862 43-58. iviovement of the pointer 201 causes the rubber band 42 to pull harder or softer on the button 51 (stretches further or less) and thereby respectively accelerate or decelerate scrolling. Id. The Martinez-Ullmann- Fukui combination stretches the rubber band 42 between Martinez's fixed marker 129B and sliding scroll box 340 to reduce the scroll bar length; just as Ullmann stretches the rubber band 42 between the fixed button 51 and moving pointer 201 for the same purpose. Final Act. 3 (citing Ullmann col. 8, 11. 33-40); Ans. 3. Claim l's scroll return ("when the [scroll] signal ends the first subset of graphical information will again be displayed") is read on Fukui' s scroll return as implemented by the Martinez-Ullmann-Fukui combination. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. Fukui discloses a marker 2 of a cursor's position within a document. Fukui col. 4, 11. 4 7-59; col. 5, 11. 52-62; Figs. 5, 7. If a user scrolls away from the marked position, such that the cursor is no longer visible, the displayed image returns to the document region of the cursor when the user stops the scrolling. Id. The Martinez-Ullmann-Fukui combination adds Fukui' s scroll return such that Martinez's menu returns to the region of the marker 129C when the user stops scrolling. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3 ("adding Fukui's return to mark ... provides automatic return ... to an original position"). Appellant contends Ullmann's button 51 and pointer 201 are not position indicators, 1 and that therefore it would not have been obvious to 1 By "position indicator," we mean directly indicating a position of graphical information within a menu, document, etc. We make no determination of whether claim l's expansive description of the first and second position indicators-"corresponding to ... a first subset of graphical information" 4 Appeal2015-002773 Application 11/019,862 stretch Ulhnann's rubber band 42 between iviartinez's marker 129C and scroll box 340 because Ullmann's cited embodiment uses the rubber band 42 to pull a fixed button 51 and thereby implement a variable scroll rate; not to link position indicators of graphical information, as is claimed. App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner responds that a skilled artisan would recognize Ullmann' s cited embodiment as drawing the rubber band 42 "from a fixed position while a movement input is being provided at a second location which is associated with information in the display area." Ans. 3. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of error because it attacks Ullmann individually rather than show error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of Martinez, Ullmann, and Fukui. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). In the Martinez- Ullmann-Fukui combination, Ullmann's rubber band 42 links Martinez's marker 129C and scroll box 340. See supra (description of combination). Thus, the Examiner relies on Martinez, rather than Ullmann, to teach or suggest claim 1 's position indicators of graphical information. The Examiner relies on Ullmann' s button 51 and pointer 201 as sufficiently analogous to Martinez's marker 129C and scroll box 340, respectively, to suggest stretching the rubber band 42 between the marker 129C and scroll box 340. Appellant does not persuasively identify error in the Examiner's proffered reason why it would have been obvious to combine Martinez's and Ullmann's teachings. We find the above-noted components of Martinez and and "associated with the second subset of graphical information" (emphasis added}---carries the same meaning. 5 Appeal2015-002773 Application 11/019,862 Ullmann are indeed sufficiently analogous to establish it would have been obvious to combine Martinez's and Ullmann's teachings-here, the combination is a predictable variation of the use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). An artisan would have understood the rubber band 42 as visualizing an exertion of force on a scroll bar component for purposes of scrolling. The artisan would have in tum contemplated stretching the rubber band 42 between any fixed scroll bar component (button 51; marker 129B) and movable scrolling component (pointer 201; scroll box 340) to visualize an exertion of force on a scroll bar component for purposes of showing the effect of ceasing scrolling. For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Martinez, Ullmann, and Fukui teaches or suggests "displaying, in response to the signal, a visual representation linking the first position indicator to the second position indicator, the visual representation indicating to a user that when the signal ends the first subset of graphical information will again be displayed," as recited in claim 1 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 4-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23-25, which Appellant does not argue separately with persuasive specificity. With respect to claim 2, Appellant merely contends Torres does not cure the purported deficiencies of the Martinez-Ullmann-Fukui combination, addressed above with respect to claim 1. As the Examiner's reliance on Martinez, Ullmann, and Fukui is not deficient, Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of error. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2. 6 Appeal2015-002773 Application 11/019,862 CLAHvIS 3, 13, 16, 18, 20, AND 22 Dependent claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Martinez, Ullmann, and Fukui and further restricts the respective base claim's "visual representation" to being a "resilient spring." Appellant argues: "[Ullmann's] virtual rubber band is not a visual representation comprising a resilient spring. A rubber band is manufactured from elastomeric materials while a spring is composed of crystalline structures." App. Br. 11. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's finding that, for the claimed invention's purpose of displaying a stretch resiliency, Ullmann's virtual rubber band would be understood as teaching or suggesting a virtual spring (i.e., a resilient spring). Ans. 4-5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3, and claims 13, 16, 18, 20, and 22, which Appellant does not argue separately. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation