Ex Parte Platzer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201711620715 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/620,715 01/07/2007 Andrew Platzer P5083US1/63266-5583US 9797 61725 7590 06/02/2017 Morgan T ewis; Rr Rnrkins T T P / AT EXAMINER 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124 THATCHER, PAUL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2172 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2017 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): padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com vskliba @ morganlewis. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW PLATZER, and SCOTT HERZ Appeal 2014-004632 Application 11/620,715 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—68, 70, and 77—85. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to a “method for operating through an application programming interface (API) in this environment” that includes 1 An oral hearing was held March 16, 2017. 2 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 5). Appeal 2014-004632 Application 11/620,715 “transferring a scroll hysteresis call to determine whether a user input invokes a scroll” and “setting a hysteresis value for determining whether a user input invokes a scroll” (see Spec. 9). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method for operating through an application programming interface (API), comprising: transferring a deceleration scroll call through the application programming interface between user interface software and a software application to set a deceleration factor for a drag user input, contacting a display of a device, that invokes a scroll. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-28, 49, 50, 52-55, 57-61, 63-65, 67, 71-74, 77, 78, 80, and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zimmerman (US 2003/0122787 Al; July 3, 2003) and Kamper (US 6,963,937 Bl; Nov. 8, 2005) (see Final Act. 3—7).3 Claims 68 and 70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zimmerman, Kamper, and Young (US 5,708,460; Jan. 13, 1998) (see Final Act. 7—9). Claims 29-48, 75, 76, 79, and 82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zimmerman, Kamper, and Wagner (US 6,570,594 Bl; May 27, 2003) {see Final Act. 9-10). Claims 51, 56, 62, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zimmerman, Kamper, and Westerman (Wayne Westerman, Hand Tracking, Finger Identification, And Chordic 3 Although the Examiner has not included claims 83—85 in the statement of rejection, it is clear from the discussion of these claims in the Answer and Appeal Brief that these claims were intended to be rejected over Zimmerman and Kamper. See Ans. 15, 19—20; App. Br. 25—26, 35—37. 2 Appeal 2014-004632 Application 11/620,715 Manipulation On A Multi-Touch Surface, University of Delaware, Spring 1999) (see Final Act. 10-11). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 18—37) and are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. Unless otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—11) and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 10-20). For emphasis, we consider and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief. Claims 1—14 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Zimmerman for teaching a deceleration scroll call that sets a deceleration factor for a user drag input on a device display to invoke a scroll (Final Act. 4). The Examiner further relies on Kamper as teaching a method for operating a task by accessing the system hardware and resources through an application programming interface (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kamper with Zimmerman because it involves nothing but applying a known technique to a known device to achieve predictable results (Final Act. 4—5). Appellants contend none of the applied references, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests setting a deceleration factor or “changing the ‘constant rate’ or ‘controlled’ rate” because “transferring a deceleration scroll call... to set a deceleration factor” is not necessary for the scrolling operation in Zimmerman (App. Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 12). Appellants 3 Appeal 2014-004632 Application 11/620,715 argue the cited portion of Zimmerman in paragraph 7 does not disclose “setting a deceleration factor for a drag user input. . . that invokes the scroll” (App. Br. 21). Additionally, Appellants argue the proposed combination does not teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1 because Kamper’s API that transfers input data from a user to an application is different from the recited “transferring a deceleration scroll call through the application programming interface” (App. Br. 23). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As stated by the Examiner, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “deceleration scroll call” relates to a function for slowing down the scroll (see Ans. 11 (citing Spec. | 89)) which is met by Zimmerman’s user input or gesture that slows down or stops a scroll (Ans. 13 (citing Zimmerman 17)). The Examiner also correctly finds that “invoking a scroll” encompasses a gesture to start a scroll without specifying any requirements for when the motion takes place or whether a faster or slower scroll is started (Ans. 13). In other words, absent a definition of “deceleration factor” in Appellants’ claim or Specification, the claim as presently written does not preclude a deceleration factor that is either pre-set or manually controlled by the speed of the user’s finger, as disclosed in paragraph 7 of Zimmerman. See also Ans. 12—13. With respect to transferring through an API, we also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kamper’s access to system hardware and resources through an API, including transfer of input data to an application, would have been known and available to an ordinary skilled artisan for handling the scroll and deceleration functions disclosed in Zimmerman (see Ans. 13—14). See also Spec, claim 3 (“transferring the deceleration scroll call is either one of issuing, initiating, invoking or receiving the deceleration 4 Appeal 2014-004632 Application 11/620,715 scroll call”). Moreover, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s proffered processing of Zimmerman’s deceleration through Kamper’s API would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher—Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Claims 5—8, 12, and 13 Appellants argue the patentability of these claims based on the same reasoning provided for claim 1. Based on our analysis above, those arguments do not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5—8, 12, and 13. Claims 15—28, 77, 80, and 83 Appellants contend the cited portions of paragraphs 6 and 7 of Zimmerman do not mention hysteresis or any “scroll hysteresis call,” as recited in claim 15 (App. Br. 26). Similar to the arguments presented for claim 1, Appellants assert the combination of Zimmerman and Kamper fails to teach or suggest “transferring a scroll hysteresis call... to determine whether a user input contacting a display of a device invokes a scroll” (App. Br. 27). In response, the Examiner explains that, absent a definition of the term “hysteresis” in Appellants’ Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the disputed limitation uses some lag, delay, or history dependence to distinguish between a user placing a finger on the screen and swiping across the screen (Ans. 16). In that regard, the Examiner finds paragraph 7 of Zimmerman provides for the same type of distinction as to whether a user input contacting the display of a device is of sufficient 5 Appeal 2014-004632 Application 11/620,715 duration or “is made to move” in order to invoke scrolling rather than select an item (Ans. 17; Final Act. 6). We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument because we agree with the Examiner’s findings and characterization of the claim term “hysteresis” which is consistent with Appellants’ discussion of the term in paragraphs 90 and 91 of their Specification. That is, Zimmerman deems the user touch on the display a “selection” until the user finger is applied to the screen for a specified duration or is made to move, after which the motion may affect scrolling, which is similar to how Appellants discuss “hysteresis” based on distance in paragraph 91 of their Specification. Claims 49, 50, 52—55, 57—61, 63—65, and 67 Appellants contend the cited portions of paragraphs 19 and 25 of Zimmerman do not teach or suggest “transferring an inadvertent user input call through the application programming interface between user interface software and a software application to determine whether a user input contacting a display of a device was inadvertent,” as recited in claim 49 (App. Br. 28—29). Appellants specifically argue Zimmerman instead describes “ignoring the contact without transferring an inadvertent user input call” (App. Br. 29). We disagree with Appellants’ arguments. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 17), Zimmerman was relied on as disclosing detection of inadvertent user input and ignoring such input (see Zimmerman || 19, 25) when the user input does not invoke scrolls (see Zimmerman || 6,7). Zimmerman teaches “if no motion of the finger occurs while the screen is stationary, and the contact continues for less than a second minimum time which is less than the first minimum time by a readily measurable finite 6 Appeal 2014-004632 Application 11/620,715 value, then step 100 ignores the contact” (Zimmerman 119 (emphasis added)). We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Zimmerman’s teachings with Kamper to transfer the user input call through an API (Ans. 17-18). Claims 51, 56, 62, 66, 68, and 70 Appellants argue the patentability of claims 51, 56, 62, and 66 based on their dependency from claims 49, 54, 60, and 64, which are discussed above. Similarly, regarding claims 68 and 70, Appellants present arguments similar to those provided for claim 49. Based on our analysis above, those arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 51, 56, 62, 66, 68, and 70. Claims 29—48 Appellants contend the cited portions of Wagner in columns 1 and 6 do not teach or suggest “transferring a scroll indicator call through the application programming interface between user interface software and a software application to determine whether at least one scroll indicator attaches to a content edge or a display edge of the display region,” as recited in claim 29 (App. Br. 32—33; see also Reply Br. 17). Appellants specifically argue Wagner’s scroll bar field and scroll bar element are not related to the claimed “transferring a scroll indicator call... to determine whether at least one scroll indicator attaches to a content edge or a display edge of the display region” (App. Br. 34). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As found by the Examiner, Wagner discloses: In accordance with another aspect of the invention, in response to a signal from the control device, the control element can be 7 Appeal 2014-004632 Application 11/620,715 triggered without the control element ever coming in to view. Alternatively, in response to a signal from the control device, the control element comes in to view before it is triggered. The control element can also be distinguishable from the designated area using a different color or shade. (Ans. 18—19 (citing Wagner col. 1,11. 53—60)). The Examiner further finds Wagner’s scroll elements control scrolling, displaying, and removing scroll bars (Ans. 19 (citing Wagner col. 6,11. 38—67)). See also Wagner Figs. 2—3. Additionally, Wagner discloses scroll bars can be activated without displaying the scroll bars, which means “the function determines ‘whether at least one scroll indicator attaches to a content edge or display edge of the display region’” (Ans. 19 (citing Wagner col. 7,11. 1—10)). We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Zimmerman and Wagner’s teachings with Kamper to transfer the scroll indicator call through an API (see Final Act. 9— 10). See also Spec, claim 32 (“transferring the scroll indicator call is either one of issuing, initiating, invoking or receiving the scroll indicator call”). Remaining Claims Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting the remaining claims based on arguments similar to those provided for their respective base claims. For the reasons previously described above, these arguments do not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting the remaining claims. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—68, 70, and 77-85. 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). 8 Appeal 2014-004632 Application 11/620,715 AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation