Ex Parte OIWA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

13036198 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/036, 198 02/28/2011
27562 7590 09/14/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RyotaOIWA
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.
LB-723-3015 4469
EXAMINER
SITTA, GRANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RYOTA OIWA
Appeal2015-004567
Application 13/036,198
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-004567
Application 13/036,198
INVENTION
This invention is directed to a program to display a selection of
objects. When an end selection object reaches a predetermined position on
the display area as a result of movement of the selected objects, the objects
are moved in a direction perpendicular. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the invention and reproduced below.
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having stored thereon a display control program executed by a
computer of a display control apparatus which displays, on a
display device, a selection object selected in accordance with an
operation by a user, the display control program causing the
computer to perform at least:
first movement control for moving, relative to a display
area of the display device, a plurality of selection objects
having at least one part thereof displayed on the display area,
based on an output signal outputted from an input device; and
second movement control for moving, relative to the
display area, in a direction different from a direction in which
the plurality of selection objects have been moved by the first
movement control, when an end-located selection object among
the plurality of selection objects reaches a predetermined
position on the display area as a result of the first movement
control moving the plurality of selection objects, at least one
selection object displayed on the display area among the
plurality of selection objects, wherein
the second movement control moves the at least one
selection object in a direction perpendicular to or approximately
perpendicular to the direction of the movement by the first
movement control.
2
Appeal2015-004567
Application 13/036,198
REJECTION AT ISSUE 1
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Platzer et al. (US 2008/0165210
Al; July 10, 2008) and Beri et al. (US 6, 141,018; Oct. 31, 2000). Final Act.
4--20.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments. Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 21.
Appellant contends with respect to independent claim 1 that the
combination of Platzer and Beri does not teach a movement control that
moves the object in a direction perpendicular to the direction of movement
of the first control. App. Br. 16. Specifically, Appellant argues that Platzer
teaches when an object is scrolled and reaches a virtual boundary, the object
is subsequently moved in a reverse direction (i.e. if the scroll is horizontal,
the object with "bounce" horizontally from the virtual boundary, and when
scroll is vertical, the bounce is vertical). App. Br. 16-17. Further, Appellant
argues that Beri, like Platzer, teaches when scrolling, bouncing is in the
same direction as the scrolling. App. 17-18. Additionally, Appellant asserts
that though the references teach scrolling vertically and horizontally, they do
1 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief dated September 24,
2014 ("Br."), the Reply Brief dated March 10, 2015 ("Reply Br."),
Examiner's Answer mailed January 12, 2015 ("Ans."), and the Final Action
mailed March 6, 2014 ("Final Act.").
3
Appeal2015-004567
Application 13/036,198
not teach that the bounce is perpendicular to the direction of scrolling as
claimed. App. Br 18-19.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant's
arguments on pages 2 through 8 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that 1)
Platzer teaches bounce in the vertical direction and not in the horizontal
direction; 2) Beri teaches horizontal scrolling and horizontal bouncing; 3)
the skilled artisan would substitute Platzer's vertical bounce with the
horizontal bounce of Beri (i.e. have horizontal scrolling with vertical
bounce); and 4) that the combination provides the predictable result of
providing the user notification the end of a scroll has been reached. Ans. 4--
7.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rationale and the teachings and
concur with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. We consider that both
references teach the perceived "bouncing" to provide an indication that the
end of a scroll has been reached. The mixing and matching of directions of
scrolling and bouncing when the end of the scrolling is reached does not
change the function of the bouncing (to alert the user, via movement of the
item, that the end of the scrolling is reached) and as such the Examiner's
combination is reasonable. We further note, the Examiner has shown that
scrolling and bouncing in vertical and horizontal directions are known, thus
there are limited numbers of combinations of scrolling and bounce
(horizontal scroll, horizontal bounce; vertical scroll, vertical bounce;
horizontal scroll, vertical bounce; vertical scroll, horizontal bounce) two of
which meet the claim movement perpendicular to the first motion.
Accordingly, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error and we
4
Appeal2015-004567
Application 13/036,198
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 2 through 4, 7, 8, and
10 through 21 which are argued with claim 1.
With respect to claims 5 and 9, Appellant argues that the combination
of Platzer and Beri does not teach that the distance of the second movement
(bounce height) is dependent upon the velocity with which the object is
moved (swipe speed). App Br. 23; Reply Br. 4--5.
The Examiner in response states:
Without out [sic] velocity 510-1 there would be no movement in the
opposite direction. Therefore, distance 512-2 of the bounce is based
on the velocity when reaching the predetermined position on the
display area (i.e., a velocity, a distance). The current claim language
just bases a movement distance on a movement velocity and does not
require, as applicant contends, the amount of bounce depends of the
magnitude of the velocity to the particular object.
Ans. 8 (discussing Platzer, Figs. 5A-5C). The Examiner finds that Platzer's
discussion of the bounce velocity being less than the scroll velocity, and the
dampening of the motion; to suggest that the distance of the perceived
bounce is suppressed based upon the velocity of the scroll motion. Ans. 9
(citing Platzer, para. 75). We have reviewed the teachings in Platzer and
concur with the Examiner. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 5 and 9.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 5 and 7
through 21under35 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).
5
Appeal2015-004567
Application 13/036,198
AFFIRMED
6