SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 27, 2020

2020003426 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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.
14/205,619 03/12/2014 Kenta OHMORI 10141US02CON 1016
154930 7590 11/27/2020
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ULRICH, NICHOLAS S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2020 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):
Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com
Sandy.Miles@Xsensus.com
anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENTA OHMORI, TAKASHI KAWAKAMI, SEIGO IWASAKI,
HIROYUKI KAWAKAMI, AKITAKA KIMURA, XIAOYU RUAN,
GEORGE ARRIOLA, YOSHIMITSU FUNABASHI,
KICHIRO KUROZUMI, BRIAN JOHNSON, JORGE FURUYA, and
TAKAHIRO KAWAGUCHI
Appeal 2020-003426
Application 14/205,619
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18. See Final Act. 1. An oral

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003426
Application 14/205,619
2
hearing was conducted on November 4, 2020. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an information presentation method and
terminal with selection of past communications of update information
features. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method of displaying
information on a mobile device, comprising:

obtaining the information which is associated with at least
two respective application programs;

displaying, on a touch screen display using an information
presentation program, the information in reverse chronological
order from an upper portion to a lower portion of the touch screen
display, the information including an identification of
communications with another entity, including (i) an
identification corresponding to the another entity with which
there is communication; (ii) time information of the
communication; and (iii) information of a content of the
communication;
detecting touching and upwardly swiping of the
information displayed on the touch screen display;

moving the information upwardly on the touch screen
display in response to the touching and upward swiping of the
information;

detecting an input instruction provided by touching and
lateral swiping on the display of the information; and

displaying, in response to the touching and lateral swiping
of the information which corresponds to a message application
which is one of the at least two respective application programs,
Appeal 2020-003426
Application 14/205,619
3
(i) a photographic image including a head image of an individual
at a center of the screen, (ii) time information right above the
head image at the center, (iii) text characters, which are
associated with the individual, right below the head image at the
center, and (iv) a message transmission/reception history at left
and right side of the screen and below the photographic image.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kirkland US 2005/0071767 A1 Mar. 31, 2005
Lemay US 2008/0055269 A1 Mar. 6, 2008
Kansal US 2008/0153459 A1 June 26, 2008
Lemay US 2009/0228807 A1 Sept. 10, 2009
Cooley US 8,073,474 B1 Dec. 6, 2011
Christie US 8,407,603 B2 Mar. 26, 2013

REJECTION
Claims 1–18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kansal et al. (US 2008/0153459 Al) and further in
view of Lemay (US 2009/0228807 Al), Lemay et al. (US 2008/0055269 Al),
Kirkland (US 2005/0071767 Al), Cooley et al. (US 8,073,474 Bl), and
Christie et al. (US 8,407,603 B2). Final Act. 2.

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–18 103(a) Kansal, Lemay ’807,
Lemay ’269, Kirkland,
Cooley, Christie

Appeal 2020-003426
Application 14/205,619
4
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1–18
Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability of
independent claims 1, 7, and 13. Appeal Br. 4. Therefore, we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will
Appellant’s arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). As a result,
independent claims 7 and 13 will stand or fall with representative
independent claim 1. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did
not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellant
contends the combination of having different types of actions result in very
specific different types of results which is novel and non-obvious. Appeal
Br. 4. Appellant also contends in the present case, there is a unique
combination of the upward swiping having the function of scrolling, and the
lateral swiping resulting in something completely different. Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant further argues that no prior art discloses or suggests the concept of
utilizing a touch screen such that swiping in one direction results in
scrolling, and swiping in a different direction results in displaying of
different information. Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner’s motivation for the
combination of the Kansal reference and the Lemay’ 807 reference is based
upon hindsight. Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant further contends that “one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not think that a
movement on a touch screen in one direction could be used for scrolling,
Appeal 2020-003426
Application 14/205,619
5
while movement on the same touch screen in a different direction could be
used for selecting.” Appeal Br. 6–7.
Appellant argues that there is a consistent reference in the claim
language to “the information” which is displayed and the upward swiping is
“of the information” and the lateral swiping is “of the information.” Appeal
Br. 7. Thus, both the upward and lateral must be done on the same
information on the display. This certainly would not happen in the
combination of Kansal and Lemay ’807. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2–3, 5.
Appellant also argues that the invention requires the different swiping
direction on the same information to cause different things to happen.
Reply Br. 5. Finally, Appellant contends that the Examiner is
“morphing/modifying references without sufficient motivation or reason to
do such morphing.” Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that because Lemay ’807 teaches lateral swiping
for selection and Lemay ’269 teaches vertical swiping for scrolling, one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would think that a
movement on a touch screen in one direction could be used for scrolling,
while movement on the same touch screen in a different direction could be
used for selecting. Ans. 6.
The Examiner further finds that at the time of the invention,
computers were well known to provide different inputs for different
functions, namely selecting and scrolling and one well-known example,
clicking a left mouse button for selection and rolling a scroll wheel mouse
button for scrolling. Ans. 6. The Examiner reasons that one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that a similar
concept should be applied with gestures on a touch screen where traditional
mouse inputs are not utilized, where a first gesture causes a first function,
Appeal 2020-003426
Application 14/205,619
6
namely selecting, while a second different gesture causes a second function,
namely scrolling. Ans. 6.
In response to Appellant’s arguments regarding both the upward and
lateral movement must be done on “the same information” on the display,
the Examiner responds that the argument does not consider the rejection as a
whole. Ans. 7. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the combination of at
least Kansal, Lemay ’807, and Lemay ’269 teach or suggest upward swiping
on the information and the lateral swiping on the information, as provided in
the rejection.
The Examiner finds that as the “selection” in Kansal is the performed
on the displayed information, then the combination provides for the lateral
swiping on the information, and the scrolling in Kansal is modified by
Lemay ’269 to be performed utilizing a vertical swipe gesture on the
information. Ans. 7.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of horizontal and
vertical swipe gestures would provide the control functionality as recited in
the language of independent claim 1. Moreover, because the claim recites
that “the information in reverse chronological order,” the claim requires a
plurality of items of information, whereby the claim cannot reasonably be
interpreted that the “same information” be a specific entry in the order. As a
result, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claimed “the information” as the information on the screen is overly broad
or unreasonable. Consequently, we find the cited combination teaches or
suggests the use of different gestures for controlling different functions.
At the oral hearing, Appellant’s representative argued that the “same”
specific item in the information in the reverse chronological order must be
touched and upwardly swiped and, in addition, the same specific item of
Appeal 2020-003426
Application 14/205,619
7
information must be touched and laterally swiped.2 We find Appellant’s
argument not commensurate in scope with the express language of
independent claim 1 because the “information” is introduced in the preamble
and “the information in reverse chronological order from an upper portion to
a lower portion of the touch screen display” must span the two portions
(upper and lower) of the screen. Consequently, “the information” cannot
reasonably refer to a single specific item.
Thus, Appellant’s argument fails because the argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because
. . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”); see also In
re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts
. . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore
unpersuasive.”). The broad language of claim 1 merely specifies “the
information,” and the Examiner has presented factual findings and a
reasonable reasoned combination of the teachings and suggestions of the
five prior art references. As a result, Appellant’s argument does not show
error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of
representative independent claim 1 and independent claims 7 and 13 and
independent claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–18 not separately argued.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18 is AFFIRMED.

2 An oral hearing was held on November 4, 2020. A transcript of the
hearing will be placed in the record in due course.
Appeal 2020-003426
Application 14/205,619
8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18 103(a) Kansal, Lemay
’807, Lemay ’269,
Kirkland, Cooley,
Christie
1–18
Overall
Outcome
1–18

RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED