Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2020

2019005165 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2020)

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.
14/022,807 09/10/2013 Corinna Paine Proctor RPS920130077USNP(710.252) 3950
58127 7590 12/14/2020
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
HOPE, DARRIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2020 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 CORINNA PAINE PROCTOR
________________

Appeal 2019-005165
Application 14/022,807
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1‒20, which are all the claims pending in this
application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Lenovo (Singapore) PTE LTD as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005165
Application 14/022,807

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to automatically scrolling content on a
display screen, such as a smart phone or tablet. Spec. ¶¶ 14‒15. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
displaying content on a display screen of an information
handling device;
detecting, at the information handling device, a trigger
for entering into a slow scrolling mode; and
automatically scrolling, using a processor of the
information handling device, the content on the display screen
in the slow scrolling mode, the slow scrolling mode being a
mode wherein the content is scrolled in a direction to present
different content on the display screen and wherein the
automatically scrolling comprises maintaining the scrolling
direction irrespective of a detected change in an orientation of
the information handling device during the automatic scrolling,
the detected change in the orientation being a change that
reorients a top and bottom of the content with respect to how
the content is displayed on the display screen;
wherein the slow scrolling mode scrolling speed is
adjustable without further user input.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1‒9 and 11‒20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hegde (US 8,438,496 B1; May 7, 2013) and Li (US
2015/0022558 A1; Jan. 22, 2015). See Final Act. 2‒13.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hegde, Li, and McDowell (US 2012/0054672 A1; Mar. 1, 2012). See Final
Act. 13‒14.

Appeal 2019-005165
Application 14/022,807

3

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Li
does not teach or suggest “maintaining the scrolling direction irrespective of
a detected change in an orientation of the information handling device
during the automatic scrolling.” See Appeal Br. 13‒15. In particular,
Appellant argues Li teaches scrolling content in a particular direction
regardless of the orientation (e.g., portrait or landscape) of the device. Id. at
15 (citing Li ¶ 25). Appellant argues Li does not disclose maintaining the
scrolling direction responsive to detecting a chance in the orientation of the
device. Id. at 15.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Hegde teaches automatically scrolling content on the
display screen in slow scrolling mode. Ans. 4 (citing Hegde 2:4‒23, 9:23‒
42). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Li teaches reorienting the content on
the display when a device is physically rotated from portrait mode to
landscape mode. Id. at 5 (citing Li ¶¶ 38, 49‒51). The Examiner further
finds, and we agree, Li teaches that regardless of the display orientation of
the device, content for an application is scrolled in the intended flow
direction. Id. at 4 (citing Li ¶¶ 21, 25). We agree with the Examiner that Li
therefore teaches “maintaining the scrolling direction irrespective of a
detected change in an orientation of the information handling device during
the automatic scrolling.”
To the extent Appellant is arguing that Li does not teach the
“automatic scrolling” portion of this limitation, the Examiner relies on
Hegde for teaching automatic scrolling. See Final Act. 3, Ans. 4. Each
reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
Appeal 2019-005165
Application 14/022,807

4

fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the relevant inquiry
is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant has not
persuasively identified error in the Examiner’s findings regarding the
combined teachings of Hegde and Li.
For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We
also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 11 and 20,
which Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal
Br. 13‒14. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2‒
9 and 12‒19, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See id.
Claim 10 stands rejected as unpatentable over Hegde, Li, and McDowell.
Appellant argues claim 10 is patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. See
id. at 15. Accordingly, we also sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 10
for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1‒9, 11‒20 103 Hegde, Li 1‒9, 11‒20
10 103 Hegde, Li, McDowell 10
Overall
Outcome
1‒20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-005165
Application 14/022,807

5

AFFIRMED