Ex Parte MAK

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

13628330 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/628,330 09/27/2012 Genevieve Elizabeth MAK
11710 7590 11/02/2018
Trap, Pruner & Hu, P.C.
1616 S. Voss Rd., Suite 750
Houston, TX 77057-2620
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.
42856-US-PAT
(RIM.001 lUS)
CONFIRMATION NO.
8020
EXAMINER
SUN,HAITAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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):
tphpto@tphm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GENEVIEVE ELIZABETH MAK
Appeal2018-004353
Application 13/628,330
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, WSTIN BUSCH, and JENNIFER L.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 2---6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16-18, and 22-26. Claims 1, 7,
10, 12, 14, 15, and 19-21 have been cancelled.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is BlackBerry Limited.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004353
Application 13/628,330
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosed invention is directed to "[a]n electronic device
[that] receives a command to scroll content for display in a display device.
An initial target position to scroll to is determined. An updated target
position in the content to scroll is determined based on identifying an
element in the content." Abstract.
Claim 8 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
8. A method of an electronic device, comprising:
receiving a command to scroll content for display in a
display device of the electronic device;
determining a first distance from a start of a scroll to an
initial target position based on a property of the command,
wherein the property includes an initial velocity of scrolling of
the content, and wherein determining the first distance is based
on the initial velocity and on a first value of a parameter
representing friction;
determining an updated target position in the content to
scroll to in response to the command, wherein the updated target
position is determined based on identifying an element in the
content in a region within a predefined distance of the initial
target position;
determining, based on the updated target position, an
updated distance, different from the first distance, to be traveled
from the start of the scroll;
calculating a second, different value of the parameter
representing friction based on the updated distance; and
scrolling to the updated target position using the second
value of the parameter representing friction.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 2---6, 8, 9, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Matsui (US 2010/0251166 Al; pub. Sept. 30, 2010),
Ording (US 2007/0132789 Al; pub. June 14, 2007), Kawanishi (US
2
Appeal2018-004353
Application 13/628,330
2010/0277496 Al; pub. Nov. 4, 2010), and Edward W. Ishak & Steven K.
Feiner, Content Aware Scrolling, UIST'06 October 15-18 (2006) ("Ishak").
Final Act. 8-17.
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Matsui, Ording, Ishak, and Lobo (US 2012/0062604 A 1;
pub. Mar. 15, 2012). Final Act. 17-22.
The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Matsui, Ording, Ishak, Lobo, and Kawanishi. Final Act.
22-25.
The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Matsui, Ishak, and Ording. Final Act. 25-29.
The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Matsui, Ishak, Ording, and Kawanishi. Final Act. 29-32.
ANALYSIS
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON MATSUI, ORDING,
KAW ANISHI, AND ISHAK
Claims 2-6, 8, 9 and 22
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2---6, 8, 9 and 22 as unpatentable over Matsui,
Ording, Kawanishi, and Ishak.
Appellant contends that the Examiner relies on impermissible
hindsight in combining Matsui, Ording, Kawanishi, and Ishak and "the
actual teachings of the references would not have suggested this
combination to a person of ordinary skill in the art." App. Br. 7; see also
Reply Br. 2-3. For example, Appellant contends that, because "Matsui
3
Appeal2018-004353
Application 13/628,330
states that an updated location is determined based on speed[, t ]here would
be no reason in Matsui to 'calculate[e] a second, different value of the
parameter representing friction based on the updated distance,' since Matsui
updates its location based on speed." App. Br. 7 (emphases omitted, second
brackets in original).
We find this argument unpersuasive. Notably, Appellant does not
address the proposed rationale provided by the Examiner to support the
proposed combination. In particular, the Examiner identifies that
The motivation [for combing Matsui and Ording with
Kawanishi] would have been to make[] viewing photographic
image data and searching for a desired image easy and efficient
as taught by Kawanishi in paragraph [0147] and to make the
scrolling speed during either or both the beginning and the end
of a cluster display period slower than the scrolling speed during
the middle of the display period as taught by Kawanishi in
paragraph [0245].
Final Act. 12. Appellant does not persuasively identify or even address the
Examiner's provided rationale.
Kawanishi also describes determining the scrolling speed using
certain control information, but this determination is not limited to such an
embodiment and, for example, may use another formula that includes
acceleration. Kawanishi ,r 242. In other words, Kawanishi at least suggests
using acceleration in addition to speed and, thus, Matsui' s use of speed does
not detract from modifying Matsui to use acceleration, as taught by
Kawanishi. See id. Moreover, Ording similarly describes determining
movement of a point including determining speed, velocity, and/or
acceleration. Ording ,r 41. Ording further describes taking friction into
account. See id. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
determination.
4
Appeal2018-004353
Application 13/628,330
Appellant next contends that Kawanishi' s updated distance is not
ultimately based on identifying an element in the content in a region within a
predefined distance of the initial target position, as required by the claim.
App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3--4. Similarly, Appellant contends that
like Kawanishi, Ording describes changing acceleration based on
characteristics of the initial point of contact of a gesture input on
a touch sensitive display, which does not consider any elements
in the content. In contrast, according to claim 8, the parameter
representing friction is updated based on identifying an element
identified in the content.
App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner, however, does not rely on either Kawanishi or Ording
as teaching the determining based on identifying an element in the content in
the region limitation. See Final Act. 11-12. Instead, the Examiner relies on
Ishak for this teaching. See Final Act. 12-13. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCP A 1981 ); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F .2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
With respect to Ishak, Appellant contends that Ishak does not teach
updating a parameter representing friction. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 5.
Namely, Ishak "states that the content-aware scrolling identifies 'important
regions in which to vary the scroll direction, speed, and zoom."' Id. As
with the arguments discussed above, the Examiner does not rely on Ishak as
teaching the friction limitation, but rather relies on Kawanishi. We,
therefore, find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive.
With respect to claim 3, Appellant argues that "[t]he important
regions of Ishak appear to refer to regions that contain specified portions of a
5
Appeal2018-004353
Application 13/628,330
document. Thus, an important region of Ishak does not constitute the
padding region of claim 3, since the important region of Ishak is not 'a
padding region that contains the initial target position.'" App. Br. 11; see
also Reply Br. 6.
We disagree. As the Examiner explains, "Ishak teaches a method of
content aware scrolling in which navigating displayed information is based
on a determination of relevancy and/ or importance of the viewed content."
Ans. 31. The Examiner finds Ishak also teaches "identifying Important
Regions; Ishak further teaches the display is repositioned based on the
determination of important regions. The important regions are identified and
scrolled, based on a predetermined scrolling distance mapping, See Ishak;
Identifying Important Regions." Ans. 32. Thus, Ishak identifies an initial
target position within an important region and then scrolls to that position.
Also, contrary to Appellant's assertions (App. Br. 11), the Examiner
does not rely on Ishak for teaching that the distance is determined based on
the initial velocity. The Examiner relies on Matsui for this limitation. See
Final Act. 14. Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 3.
With respect to claim 6, Appellant argues that
The attractive force of Matsui thus represents a distance between
a median point of a display area and a median point of attractive
data. The attractive force thus indicates how close attractive data
is. In contrast, claim 6 recites tags that indicate priorities of
corresponding elements of the plural elements, where the
identified element is selected from the plural elements based on
6
Appeal2018-004353
Application 13/628,330
the priorities of the corresponding elements. First, the calculated
attractive force of Matsui is not a priority indicated by a tag
associated with an element. Second, the calculated attractive
force of Matsui indicates proximity of attractive data, and not a
priority of an element.
App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner explains that "Matsui teaches FIG. 7 is a diagram
illustrating an example of a description of attractive data. Matsui further
teaches keywords are tags and indicate higher priorities of words
corresponding [to the] body of [a] homepage as illustrated in Fig. 7."
Ans. 33. In other words, it is the identification of keywords as a higher
priority that the Examiner relies on as teaching the claimed limitation. As
such, we are not persuaded of error.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2---6, 8, 9 and 22 as unpatentable over Matsui, Ording,
Kawanishi, and Ishak.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON MATSUI, ORDING, ISHAK,
AND LOBO
Claims 11, 13 and 16
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 11, 13 and 16 as unpatentable over Matsui, Ording,
Kawanishi, and Ishak.
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 11, Appellant relies on
arguments similar to those presented for claim 8. See, e.g., App. Br. 13-14;
Reply Br. 8-9. For example, Appellants allege that "[a]lthough Lobo refers
to 'friction coefficients,' there is no indication that such friction coefficients
are updated to a second, different value, based upon the updated target
7
Appeal2018-004353
Application 13/628,330
position determined based on the identifying of the element in the content."
Reply Br. 9-10. As discussed above, the Examiner relies on Ishak as
teaching the "based on identifying an element in the content" limitation.
Ans. 14. Additionally, the Examiner explains that "Lobo teaches different
equations or coefficients can be used, i.e. coefficients or friction parameters,
can be updated to different values" and that "deceleration and friction
coefficients are parameter representing the friction." Ans. 35; see also Lobo
,r 60 ( describing performing more than one calculation that can involve one
or more inertia motion values, e.g. friction coefficients); ,r 62 (teaching that
deceleration can be calculated using equations and coefficients, for example
friction coefficients, that can vary). Accordingly, based on the record before
us, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 11, and
dependent claims 13 and 16 as unpatentable over Matsui, Ording, Ishak, and
Lobo.
THE REMAINING REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 17, 18, and 23-26
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 17, 18, and 23-26 as unpatentable over the cited
combinations of prior art. Appellant does not separately argue the rejections
of these claims and instead relies on the arguments presented for
independent claims 8 and 11. See, e.g., App. Br. 15-16. For the reasons
discussed above, we find these arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejections of claims 17, 18, and 23-26 as unpatentable over the
cited combinations of prior art.
8
Appeal2018-004353
Application 13/628,330
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2---6, 8, 9, 11, 13,
16-18, and 22-26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9