Ex Parte Pallakoff

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13733000 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
13/733,000 01/02/2013 Matt Pallakoff MOVE06—MOVE03-C1 1018
79942 7590
Nathan Calvert
Nathan Calvert
1200 El 1th St, No. 207
Austin, TX 78702
09/28/2017 EXAMINER
WEBER, JOY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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 MATT PALLAKOFF
Appeal 2017-003874
Application 13/733,000
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOYCE CRAIG, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—13 and 15—21. App. Br. I.2 Claim 14 has been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Move Mobile Systems, Inc.
Br. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”)
mailed May 5, 2015, (2) the Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed January 21, 2016, and
(3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 5, 2016.
Appeal 2017-003874
Application 13/733,000
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is a touch-screen user interface that is useful for
selecting small, closely spaced items on a handheld device. Spec. 1 69. For
example, if a web page returns a set of links that are very close together, the
user’s finger can cover multiple links at once. Id. As a result, the user may
have difficulty determining whether their finger is over the link that they
want to select. Id. To help the user identify the link that the user is pressing,
one embodiment displays a bubble above the user’s finger. Id.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Stabb et al. US 2005/0091612 A1 Apr. 28, 2005
Kennedy US 2006/0022955 Al Feb. 2,2006
Claims 1, 2, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Kennedy. Final Act. 2—5.
Claims 3—5, 7—13, and 15—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kennedy and Stabb et al. Final Act. 6—20.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, and 6
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis on the limitation at
issue:
1. A method for providing a user interface to interact with Web
pages or other content or user interface elements displayed on a
handheld device having a touchscreen display, the method
comprising:
while a user presses a finger down on the touchscreen
display and the finger thereby covers all or part of a target
2
Appeal 2017-003874
Application 13/733,000
selectable element including first displayed information,
displaying the first information in a first box or “bubble”, the
first box or “bubble” positioned away from an area at which the
finger is pressed so as to not be covered by the user’s finger and
so as to help the user properly position their finger on a target
item under the finger;
if the user’s finger moves off of the target selectable
element without lifting and moves over a second target
selectable element having second displayed information without
lifting, removing the first box or bubble and showing a new
second box or bubble with content updated to correspond to the
second displayed information; and
detecting when the user's finger is lifted from the second
target selectable element, and in response activating the second
target selectable element.
Contentions
The Examiner finds Kennedy discloses every recited element of claim
1. Final Act. 3^4. In particular, the Examiner finds that Kennedy removes a
magnifying bubble as the user’s touch moves across the screen. Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that Kennedy lacks the removing step recited in
claim 1. Br. 7—11. According to Appellant, Kennedy teaches only moving
and updating a displayed object, but does not teach the recited removing and
showing a new object. Id. at 8—10. In Appellant’s view, the Examiner’s
interpretation of “removing” and “showing a new second box or bubble” is
unreasonably broad because the interpretation (1) is inconsistent with the
Specification, claims, and prior art and (2) renders the limitation
meaningless. Id. at 8—9.
Issue
Appellant’s arguments for representative claim 1 (see id. at 7—11)
present us with the following issue:
3
Appeal 2017-003874
Application 13/733,000
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Kennedy discloses removing the first box or bubble and showing a new
second box or bubble with content updated to correspond to the second
displayed information, as recited ?
Analysis
We disagree with Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s
interpretation is unreasonably broad. Br. 7—11. Unlike other terms, the
Specification does not define the term “removing” to require a successive
displaying of a particular set of images.3 Spec. 1 69. The Specification
merely discloses that removal involves displaying a first box at one instant
and not displaying it at another. See, e.g., id. H 69-71. In fact, as Appellant
points out, the Specification is unconcerned with how to carry out the
process that accomplishes the visual effect. See Br. 9. Thus, under a broad,
but reasonable, interpretation consistent with these examples (see, e.g.,
Spec. H 69-71), the removing step only requires that a box or bubble is not
shown at the same position or with the same appearance after the recited
condition is met.
Like the recited removing step, we agree that Kennedy discloses
removing one magnifying bubble and replacing it with a second magnifying
bubble (the recited “new second box or bubble”). See Final Act. 4 (citing
Kennedy 144, Figs. 12A—12M). In particular, Kennedy’s magnifying
bubble follows the user’s touch across the screen. Kennedy 144. Kennedy
calls this magnifying bubble an “expanded area,” which can take various
shapes. Id. 137. For instance, Kennedy’s bubble magnifies or expands the
3 For example, Appellant defines “finger activation force.” See Spec. 1 52.
4
Appeal 2017-003874
Application 13/733,000
area underneath the touch. Id. 135. The amount of expansion is based on
the location of the touch—e.g., “region sensitivity.” Id. 144. So, one object
is magnified two times and another object of graphical information at a
second location is magnified 16 times. Id. In this way, Kennedy removes a
first magnifying bubble—e.g., the bubble at a first location—and displays a
new one—e.g., the bubble at a second location with a higher magnification.
Id.
We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation renders
the limitation meaningless. Br. 9. The Examiner’s rationale is not based on
removing the display element repeatedly when a new frame is updated. Id.
Rather, the Examiner explains that the limitation at issue covers the
movement of Kennedy’s bubble across the screen. See Final Act. 3^4
(discussing how the portion follows the touch and moves). Indeed, Kennedy
discloses several ways that the bubble’s expansion, or “expanded area,” is
removed and replaced with a new one at a different position with a new
appearance. Kennedy 144. On this record, we agree that Kennedy discloses
removing the first box or bubble and showing a new second box or bubble
with content updated to correspond to the second displayed information, as
recited. Final Act. 3^4.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 6,
which are not separately argued. See Br. 7—11.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
The Examiner finds the subject matter of claims 3—5, 7—13, and 15—21
would have been obvious over Kennedy and Stabb. Final Act. 6—20.
5
Appeal 2017-003874
Application 13/733,000
Citing the reasons discussed in connection with claim 1, Appellant
argues that the Kennedy-Stabb combination does not remove an element and
display one under the recited conditions. Br. 11. As discussed above, we
find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive and conclude that the Examiner did
not err in finding that Kennedy discloses removing a displayed element and
displaying a new one under certain conditions.
Appellant further argues that Stabb and Kennedy address unrelated
issues. Id. at 12. According to Appellant, one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have relied on Stabb’s preview panels with Kennedy’s moving
bubble because Stabb’s teachings do not help a user select small items on a
touchscreen. Id. We disagree.
A suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art
teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art. In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 987—88 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the Examiner’s obviousness
rationale is based on improving Kennedy’s interface to incorporate a content
preview. See, e.g., Final Act. 11, 19—20. Specifically, the Examiner finds
that the proposed enhancement would allow Kennedy’s user to preview the
content based on an input position. Id. Notably, the position can be
supplied by a touch screen (Stabb 140), such as the one disclosed by
Kennedy. In this way, the Examiner’s proposed enhancement predictably
uses the prior art elements according to their established functions, and
involves a creative step within the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See
Final Act. 6—20.
Appellant further contends one of ordinary skill would have had no
reason to combine Kennedy and Stabb. Br. 11—12. Appellant argues that
Kennedy requires another behavior to activate a preview feature, and Stabb
6
Appeal 2017-003874
Application 13/733,000
shows an item preview when the mouse “hovers” over an object. Id. at 11.
In Appellant’s view, Stabb is only concerned with mouse movement. Id.
Appellant argues that touch inputs would not be interpreted as claimed
because a mouse pointer would never be lifted or removed like touch inputs.
Id. at 12.
But the standard for obviousness is not bodily incorporation, as
Appellant’s arguments {id. at 11—12) suggest. Here, the Examiner proposes
modifying Kennedy with Stabb’s user-interface behavior, not a particular
device. See, e.g., Final Act. 11, 19-20. In other words, the proposed
modification does not require incorporating the particular device that
invokes the relied-upon behaviors. Ans. 7 (citing Stabb 140). Indeed,
Stabb’s feature depends on an input position—i.e., moving over an item and
moving away. See, e.g., Stabb 2A, 2B. Stabb also discloses that other
devices, such as a touch screen, can be used to supply this input position.
Id. 140. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments regarding mouse movement
(Br. 11—12) are unpersuasive.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of claims 3—5, 7—13, and 15—21, which are argued together. See id. at 11—
12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—13 and 15—21.
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