Tae Yeong Kwak et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2020

14225719 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
14/225,719 03/26/2014 Tae Yeong KWAK 2557NHN-000013-US 7349
30593 7590 02/28/2020
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
RIES, LAURIE ANNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2020 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
jcastellano@hdp.com
jhill@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAE YEONG KWAK, DONG WOOK KIM, and
YOON SHICK LEE

Appeal 2018-007603
Application 14/225,719
Technology Center 2100

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application.2 Claims App. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Mar. 26, 2014 (“Spec.”); the Non-Final
Office Action, mailed Aug. 28, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Jan. 29, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 15, 2018
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed July 16, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “[A]pplicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Naver Corp. as the real party-in-
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007603
Application 14/225,719

2

We reverse.
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for scrolling to a desired position in a document
displayed on the touchscreen of a terminal, based on the direction, speed,
distance, and trajectory of a touch gesture performed on the touchscreen by a
user to scroll through the document. Spec. ¶¶ 2, Figs. 2, 3.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method of controlling a jump/scroll event on
a terminal, the terminal including a touch screen, the method
comprising:
receiving, by the terminal, a touch signal, the touch signal
indicating at least one gesture performed on the touch screen;
analyzing, by the terminal, a document to calculate at least
one jump/ scroll position at which to orient the touch screen;
determining, by the terminal, that a jump/scroll event has
occurred when the performed gesture corresponds to at least one
candidate gesture from among a plurality of potential gestures,
the determining including calculating the direction and speed of
the received touch signal and generating results based on the
calculated direction and speed and a desired threshold direction
and speed; and
orienting, by the terminal, the document to the at least one
jump/scroll position based on the results of the determining and
the analyzing.

Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.)
Appeal 2018-007603
Application 14/225,719

3

III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Number Filed Publ’d/Issued
Hinckley US 2004/0150630 A1 Feb. 2, 2004 Aug. 5, 2004
Milic-Frayling US 2010/0223257 A1 Apr. 30, 2010 Sept. 2, 2010
Homma US 2010/0225604 A1 Mar. 2, 2010 Sept. 9, 2010

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 6–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Homma and Hinckley. Final
Act. 3–26.
2. Claims 3–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Homma, Hinckley, Milic-Frayling. Id. at 26–28.
V. ANALYSIS
1. Claims 1, 2, and 6–20
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Homma and Hinckley teaches or suggests “analyzing by the
terminal, a document to calculate at least one jump/scroll position at which
to orient the touch screen,” as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br.
17. In particular, Appellant argues that Homma discloses determining the
scroll speed of a document based solely on the amount of pressure that the
user applied to the capacitive touchscreen, as opposed to analyzing the

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2018-007603
Application 14/225,719

4

document in order to calculate the jump/scroll position of the touchscreen
display. Id. at 18 (citing Homma ¶ 65). According to Appellant, Homma’s
scrolling operation is only dependent on the amount of force applied on the
touchscreen irrespective of the document. Id. at 18–19.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not articulated a proper
motivation to combine Homma with Hinckley. Id. at 20. According to
Appellant, Hinckley’s disclosure of a physical trackpad for tracking the
amount of distance a user’s finger travels while touching the trackpad when
performing a flicking gesture cannot be modified for use on Homma’s
touchscreen, let alone curing the noted deficiencies of Homma. Id. (citing
Hinckley ¶¶ 3–8, 24). Appellant submits that the proposed combination of
Homma and Hinckley would at best result in a virtual keyboard for use in a
touchscreen that allows a user to perform a flicking gesture to control a
document scrolling operation on the touchscreen while keeping a virtual
keyboard on the screen. Id. at 21. Furthermore, Appellant argues that
Hinckley teaches away from Homma by rejecting the use of pressure/speed
threshold preferred in Homma, but opts instead for using a “continuous
variable gain” based on the distance traveled by the user’s finger on the
trackpad to determine scrolling operation. Id. (citing Hinckley ¶¶ 43–56,
Homma ¶¶ 4–7).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
As an initial matter, we note it is undisputed that Homma teaches
determining the speed and position of a scroll (i.e., jump scroll) within a
document by evaluating the amount of pressure a user’s finger applied on
the touchscreen. Homma ¶ 60. Homma also discloses that upon
Appeal 2018-007603
Application 14/225,719

5

determining that a pressure operation has been performed, the control
section of the terminal scrolls the line of images Pi upward and downward
within the document to change the scroll speed according to the pressing
force, and location of the touchscreen where the input touch was applied. Id.
¶¶ 37, 53, 54, 60, 65, and 66. We do not agree with the Examiner that
Homma’s scrolling of line of images upward and downward teaches
analyzing the document to determine a jump/scroll position at which to
orient the document. Ans. 10–11 (citing Homma ¶ 60). The
upward/downward scrolling of the line of images is merely a result of the
assessment of the applied pressure on the touchscreen, and does not
constitute any particular analysis of content rendered on the touchscreen. We
agree with Appellant that Homma’s jump/scroll position determination or
upward/downward scrolling of line of images on the screen is determined
solely based on the evaluated applied pressure, and irrespective of the
content displayed on the touchscreen. Reply Br. 4–6.
We further agree with Appellant that Hinckley’s disclosure of a
physical trackpad for tracking the amount of distance a user’s finger travels
while touching the trackpad when performing a flicking gesture does not
cure the noted deficiencies of Homma. Appeal Br. 20. Because Appellant
has shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1, we do not reach Appellant’s remaining arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claims 1, 15, and 20, each of which includes the argued
limitation. Likewise, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 6–14, and
16–20, which also recite the disputed limitation.
Appeal 2018-007603
Application 14/225,719

6

2. Claims 3–5
Regarding dependent claims 3–5, Appellant argues that Milic-
Frayling’s disclosure of a search engine application generating a thumbnail
image of search results in response to receiving a search term does not cure
the noted deficiencies in the Homma–Hinckley combination. Appeal Br. 23.
We agree with Appellant. Consequently, we are persuaded of reversible
error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3–5.
VI. CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–20 103 Homma, Hinckley 1, 2, 6–20
3–5 103 Homma, Hinckley, Milic-Frayling 3–5
Overall Outcome 1–20

REVERSED