Ex Parte Renwick

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

13037835 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
13/037,835 03/01/2011 James Edward Renwick 042933/401295 7646
10949 7590 12/21/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
DUONG, HIEN LUONGVAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES EDWARD RENWICK
Appeal 2016-002381
Application 13/037,835
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—14, 16, 17, and 19—22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 4, 11, 15, and 18 have been
cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies
Oy. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002381
Application 13/037,835
Invention
The claims are directed to methods and apparatuses for interacting
with a three-dimensional user interface by rotating displayed elements.
Spec. 144, Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
receiving an indication of a hovering gesture input to a
touch display;
determining, based at least in part on the received
indication, a position of the hovering gesture input in relation to
a three-dimensional user interface comprising a plurality of
displayed elements in a three-dimensional rotary configuration
displayed by the touch display;
identifying a displayed element of the three-dimensional
rotary configuration within a defined proximity of the position of
the hovering gesture input based on a perceived position of the
displayed element; and
causing, based at least in part on the identified display
element and the indication of the hovering gesture input, a
modification of at least the displayed element of the three-
dimensional user interface.
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
King US 2011/0179368 A1 July 21, 2011
2
Appeal 2016-002381
Application 13/037,835
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—14, 16, 17, and 19—22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by King. Final Act. 5—9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant’s arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—9) and the findings and the reasons set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—7). We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and
argument for emphasis as follows.
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 16
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding King discloses “a
three-dimensional user interface comprising a plurality of displayed
elements in a three-dimensional rotary configuration,” as recited in claims 1,
8, and 16. App. Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 2—3. Specifically, Appellant argues
“rotary means ‘turning on an axis like a wheel’” (App. Br. 10), but King
does not disclose that its “display objects would be provided in such a
configuration, or tum[ ] on an axis like a wheel” (App. Br. 11). Appellant
further argues King’s cube display object, shown in Figure 7, “does not
show any type of axis nor the cube being rotated” in “any such animation of
movement about an axis.” Reply Br. 2 (citing King 161).
3
Appeal 2016-002381
Application 13/037,835
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, King
teaches “a 3D (three dimension[al]) cube with six faces that [a] user can
rotate [ ] to see different faces of the cube.” Ans. 4 (citing King | 61, Fig. 7)
(emphasis omitted). Indeed, King teaches a user interface for cube 170 that
“accept[s] 2D or 3D gesture inputs for rotating cube 170 in order to show the
various views” of the cube’s faces. King | 61, Fig. 7.
Appellant’s arguments that King does not disclose rotation about an
axis are not persuasive because the claims do not require rotation about an
axis. Initially, we note Appellant’s Specification does not provide any
explicit definition of a “three-dimensional rotary configuration” (or any
definition of “rotary” or “rotation”). Further, the claims only recite
displaying elements “in a three-dimensional rotary configuration” and do not
recite how the elements rotate. Because King discloses “rotating cube 170”
(King 161), King’s cube is able to be rotated and indeed, be rotated around
an axis, and therefore configured for rotation. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding King discloses “a three-dimensional
user interface comprising a plurality of displayed elements in a three-
dimensional rotary configuration,” within the meaning of claims 1, 8, and
16.
Dependent Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 19, 21, and 22
“rotate three-dimensionally about a two-dimensional axis ”
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding King discloses
“causing the plurality of displayed elements to rotate three-dimensionally
about a two-dimensional axis based on the rate of the movement,” as recited
in claim 3 and similarly recited in claims 5, 10, 12, 19, 21, and 22. App. Br.
4
Appeal 2016-002381
Application 13/037,835
12—13; Reply Br. 3^4. Specifically, Appellant argues “there is no such
disclosure of an axis” that an object rotates about in King. Reply Br. 4; App.
Br. 12-13.
We are not persuaded. As discussed above, the Examiner finds (Ans.
4; Final Act. 3), and we agree, King teaches a three-dimensional cube with
six faces that “accept[s] 2D or 3D gesture inputs for rotating [the] cube 170
in order to show the various” faces (King 161, Fig. 7). The Examiner
further finds, and we agree, that a three-dimensional object includes “three
different ax[es,] generally recognized in the art as [the X]-axis, Y-axis, and
Z-axis” and so “[Rotating the 3D cube” would rotate the cube “around one
of the three ax[es].” Ans. 4—5.
Appellant’s argument that “King only very generally discuss[es]
‘rotating’ in the sense of passing through a sequence of items” (App. Br. 12—
13 ; see Reply Br. 2) is not persuasive. In assessing the propriety of an
anticipation rejection, “it is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art
would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Here, King displays a three-dimensional object,
cube 170, and further “rotat[es] cube 170 in order to show” the cube’s faces.
King Fig. 7,1 61. One skilled in the art would reasonably understand that
“rotating” a three-dimensional object to show other faces of the object
means turning, i.e., rotating, the object itself. Furthermore, we agree with
the Examiner that rotating an object from one face to another inherently
rotates that object about an axis. See Ans. 4—5. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding King discloses “causing the
5
Appeal 2016-002381
Application 13/037,835
plurality of displayed elements to rotate three-dimensionally about a two-
dimensional axis,” within the meaning of claims 3, 5, 10 12, 19, 21, and 22.
“rotate . . . based on the rate of the movement ”
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding King discloses “a rate
of a movement of the hovering gesture . . . causing the plurality of displayed
elements to rotate . . . based on the rate of the movement,” as recited in
claims 3 and 10. App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner
“does not address any of the claim features regarding the rate” and King
does not disclose that the “rate at which the hover input is applied is
reflected in the rate at which the displayed elements move.” App. Br. 12.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, King
recognizes gesture inputs for navigating through different elements of
King’s interface by the “movement of [user] fingers up and down by a
threshold distance navigate.” Ans. 6 (citing King 124); Final Act. 7. That
is, King recognizes a gesture input for rotating when a user’s fingers move a
certain distance.
Appellant’s argument that King’s input rate is not “reflected in the
rate at which the displayed elements move” (App. Br. 12) is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not require
moving elements at a rate “reflecting” the rate of an input movement.
Instead, the claims broadly recite that rotation is “based on” the rate of the
input movement. When no finger movement occurs in King, the rate of
movement is zero and there is no rotation of the cube. See King 124. There
is rotation of King’s cube when a finger movement exceeds a distance
threshold (see id.) and that finger movement, inherently, must have a non­
zero rate. Because King does not rotate its cube when the rate of finger
6
Appeal 2016-002381
Application 13/037,835
movement is zero and does rotate its cube when the rate of finger movement
is non-zero, the rotation of King’s cube is “based on” the rate of finger
movement. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding King discloses “a rate of a movement of the hovering gesture . . .
causing the plurality of displayed elements to rotate three-dimensionally
about a two-dimensional axis based on the rate of the movement,” within the
meaning of claims 3 and 10.
“rotate . . . based on the duration of the hovering gesture ”
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding King discloses “a
duration of the hovering gesture . . . causing the plurality of displayed
elements to rotate three-dimensionally about a two-dimensional axis based
on the duration of the hovering gesture,” as recited in claim 21. App. Br. 13.
Specifically, Appellant argues King does not disclose “moving displayed
elements based on the duration of the hovering gesture.” App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that King
teaches a time threshold. Final Act. 9 (citing King 123). In particular, King
“accept[s] 3D gesture input” when fingers are hovered “above display
surface 116 for a time period greater than a time threshold (for example, 1
second).” King 123.
Appellant’s argument, that King’s time threshold “has no relation” to
moving elements (App. Br. 13), is without elaboration and is unpersuasive.
King accepts inputs to navigate through elements in a user interface when
fingers hover longer than a time threshold, e.g., 1 second. King 123. That
is, King moves elements based on whether the finger hover is longer than a
time threshold. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding King discloses “a duration of the hovering gesture . . . causing the
7
Appeal 2016-002381
Application 13/037,835
plurality of displayed elements to rotate three-dimensionally about a two-
dimensional axis based on the duration of the hovering gesture,” within the
meaning of claim 21.
“rotate . . . based on the length of the movement ”
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding King discloses “a
length a movement of the hovering gesture . . . causing the plurality of
displayed elements to rotate three-dimensionally about a two-dimensional
axis based on the length of the movement of the hovering gesture,” as
recited in claim 22. App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant argues King does
not disclose “rotating displayed elements based on the length of the hovering
gesture.” App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, King’s interface is navigated, i.e., King’s cube is rotated, when
finger movement exceeds a certain distance threshold. Ans. 6 (citing King
124); Final Act. 9.
Appellant’s argument, that King’s distance threshold “has no relation”
to moving elements (App. Br. 13), is without elaboration and is
unpersuasive. King only provides an input to rotate a cube when fingers
move a certain distance. King 124. That is, King moves elements based on
whether fingers have moved a certain length. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding King discloses “a length a
movement of the hovering gesture . . . causing the modification comprises
causing the plurality of displayed elements to rotate three-dimensionally
about a two-dimensional axis based on the length of the movement of the
hovering gesture,” within the meaning of claim 22.
8
Appeal 2016-002381
Application 13/037,835
Remaining Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17, and 20
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for dependent claims
2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17, and 20, which depend directly or indirectly from claims
1, 8, or 16. See App. Br. 10-13. For the reasons set forth above, therefore,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board
has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more
substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated
separately.”) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2,
6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17, and 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—14,
16, 17, and 19-22.
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
9