Ex Parte Platzer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

11620715 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
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