Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

14364975 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/364,975 06/12/2014
10949 7590 06/27/2018
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
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wei Wang
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.
042933/447225 5431
EXAMINER
DRAGOESCU, CLAUDIA B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEI WANG, QIFENG YAN, FENG ZHOU,
and QIAN CHENG
Appeal2017-010523
Application 14/364,975 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, 15, 17-19, and 21-29, which are all of the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to "user interface technology," and more
specifically a technique "to enable management of interactive objects via a
user interface." Spec. 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies
Oy. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010523
Application 14/364,975
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
generating, via a processor, a merging area comprising one
or more items of visible indicia corresponding to shortcuts to
respective applications, the merging area being arranged within
a first area of a plurality of screens of a user interface; and
enabling moving of the merging area horizontally from the
first area, in at least one screen of the screens, to a second area
of the user interface in another screen that precedes the at least
one screen or is subsequent to the at least one screen to enable
display of the merging area in response to detection, via the user
interface, of a pointer moving the merging area to the second
area.
Rejections
Claims 1, 3-8, 15, 17-19, and 21-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 4.
Claims 1, 6, 15, 24, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Nakajima et al. (US 2009/0144661 Al; June 4,
2009). Final Act. 6.
Claims 3-5, 7, 17-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Nakajima. Final Act. 9.
Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Nakajima and Chaudhri et al. (US 2009/0058821
Al; Mar. 5, 2009). Final Act. 11.
2
Appeal2017-010523
Application 14/364,975
Claims 8, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Nakajima and Sakai et al. (US
2011/0072361 Al; Mar. 24, 2011). Final Act. 12.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination ofNakajima and Chaudhri et al. (US 2006/0277469 Al; Dec. 7,
2006). Final Act. 14.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the Specification lacked
sufficient disclosure for "enabling moving of the merging area horizontally
from the first area, in at least one screen of the screens, to a second area of
the user interface in another screen that precedes the at least one screen or is
subsequent to the at least one screen," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Nakajima discloses "enabling
moving of the merging area horizontally from the first area, in at least one
screen of the screens, to a second area of the user interface in another screen
that precedes the at least one screen or is subsequent to the at least one
screen," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Written Description
For written description, "the test for sufficiency is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane). "[W]hile the description requirement does not
demand any particular form of disclosure, or that the specification recite the
3
Appeal2017-010523
Application 14/364,975
claimed invention in haec verba, a description that merely renders the
invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement." Id. at 1352 (citation
omitted).
Here, claim 1 recites "enabling moving of the merging area
horizontally from the first area, in at least one screen of the screens, to a
second area of the user interface in another screen that precedes the at least
one screen or is subsequent to the at least one screen."
Appellants rely on three parts of the Specification as support for this
limitation. App. Br. 7-8. None are persuasive. The first part discloses the
following:
In this manner, the merging area module 78 may generate a
merging area for display. The merging area may be movable, by
the merging area module 78 to any suitable portion (e.g., an
upper portion, a middle portion, a lower portion in a vertical
direction, a left portion, a right portion in a horizontal direction,
etc.) of a screen (e.g., a home screen, etc.) of a touch screen
interface 54. The merging area module 78 may move a merging
area in response to receipt of an indication of a selection, by a
pointer, of a portion of a merging area being moved across the
touch screen interface 54.
Spec. 16: 16-23 (emphasis added). In the Appeal Brief, however, Appellants
use an ellipsis to ignore the text underlined above, which states that the
movement of the merging area is to a portion "of a screen (e.g., a home
screen, etc.)." App. Br. 7. Nowhere does this part of the Specification
disclose moving the merging area to a portion of a different screen, rather
than moving the merging area to a different portion of the same screen.
The second part of the Specification relied upon by Appellants
discloses: "Moreover, the merging area module 78 may enable a merging
area to be moved to different areas of a home screen or any other screen of
4
Appeal2017-010523
Application 14/364,975
the touch screen interface 54 which may be displayed by the touch screen
display 50." Spec. 17:3-5 (emphasis added); App. Br. 7-8. In context,
however, this again discloses moving the merging area to different areas
within the same screen. This is made clear by the rest of the paragraph,
including the sentences immediately before and after the cited one, which
discloses "[t]he merging area may be viewable in a same position (e.g., at a
bottom position, a middle position, a top position, etc.) of the previously
accessed screen as well as the home screen and any other suitable screens";
"to enable a merging area to be viewable in a same position of a home
screen as well as the next or subsequent views, or any other views, of the
touch screen interface 54"; and "by enabling the merging area to be
displayed via the touch screen display 50 in a home screen of the touch
screen interface 54 as well as a previous, next or subsequent screens of the
touch screen interface 54, the merging area module 78 may maintain
continuity between different user interface views." Spec. 16:24--17: 13
(emphasis added). Thus, in context, this part of the Specification discloses
that movement of the merging area within any one screen will be reflected
across all screens, such as is shown in Figure 4C with merging area 5
remaining stationary at the bottom of the screen despite the user's transition
from one screen to another. Again, there is no disclosure of moving the
merging area horizontally from one screen to a different screen.
Finally, Appellants argue the Specification "describes non-limiting
examples in which the other screens may be previous, next or subsequent
screens of the touch screen interface 54. (e.g., page 3, page 16, page 17, page
19, etc. of Appellant's originally-filed specification)." App. Br. 8. We
agree the Specification discloses moving between multiple screens, such as
5
Appeal2017-010523
Application 14/364,975
shown in Figure 4C. However, merely switching screens fails to disclose
"moving of the merging area horizontally" from one screen to another, as
required in claim 1.
Appellants therefore have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
finding that the Specification fails to reasonably convey to a person of
ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of "enabling moving
of the merging area horizontally from the first area, in at least one screen of
the screens, to a second area of the user interface in another screen that
precedes the at least one screen or is subsequent to the at least one screen."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection under§ 112 of claim 1, and
claims 3-8, 15, 17-19, and 21-29, which Appellants argue are patentable for
similar reasons. See App. Br. 8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Anticipation
As discussed above, claim 1 recites "enabling moving of the merging
area horizontally from the first area, in at least one screen of the screens, to a
second area of the user interface in another screen that precedes the at least
one screen or is subsequent to the at least one screen." Independent claims
15 and 29 recite commensurate limitations.
The Examiner concludes that "this limitation means a drag or swipe
gesture anywhere on the screen, having the effect to switch to a different
home screen, and displaying the merging area on the different screen." Ans.
6. The Examiner further finds that Nakajima discloses this limitation
because "Nakajima teaches a horizontal gesture for switching screens, and a
launcher bar (i.e. merging area) that remains displayed on the new home
screen at the same position as on the previous screen." Id. at 6-7.
6
Appeal2017-010523
Application 14/364,975
We agree with Appellants, however, that the launcher bar 10 being in
the "same position" does not disclose "enabling moving of the merging area
horizontally" as recited by the independent claims.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under§ 102 of
independent claims 1, 15, and 29, and their dependent claims 6, 24, and 27.
Obviousness
There is no pending rejection in which the Examiner relies upon
obviousness or the additional references to cure the deficiencies of the
independent claims discussed above. See Reply Br. 16; Ans. 8-9; Final Act.
8-15; App. Br. 13-15.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections under§ 103 of
dependent claims 3-5, 7, 8, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 26, and 28.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 3-8, 15, 17-19, and 21-29 under§ 112, first paragraph.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 15, 24, 27,
and 29 under§ 102 and rejecting claims 3-5, 7, 8, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 26, and
28 under§ 103.
Because we affirm at least one rejection for every appealed claim, we
designate this Decision an affirmance.
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7