Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2021

2020004066 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2021)

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.
15/620,716 06/12/2017 Glenn Wolters P29357US1/063266-7380-
US
8538
61725 7590 08/12/2021
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)(Apple)
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
EXAMINER
CASILLAS, ROLAND J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2021 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLENN WOLTERS and MICHEL ELINGS
Appeal 2020-004066
Application 15/620,716
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple, Inc. Appeal
Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-004066
Application 15/620,716
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to devices, methods, and graphical user
interfaces for manipulating embedded interactive content. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-readable storage medium storing one or
more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions
which, when executed by an electronic device with a display, a touch-
sensitive surface, and one or more sensors to detect intensities of
contacts with the touch-sensitive surface, cause the electronic device
to:
display, on the display:
first content that includes an interactive user interface object
that conditionally exhibits respective interactive behavior responsive
to changes in a detected contact characteristic, and
second content, distinct from the first content, that does not
exhibit the respective interactive behavior responsive to changes in
the detected contact characteristic;
detect a first input by a contact while a focus selector is over the
interactive user interface object on the display;
in accordance with a determination that the first input meets
first appearance manipulation criteria, wherein the first appearance-
manipulation criteria include a criterion that is met when a
characteristic of the contact exceeds a first threshold during the first
input, change an appearance of the interactive user interface object
based on the characteristic of the contact, wherein changing the
appearance of the interactive user interface object is independent of
lateral movement of the contact across the touch-sensitive surface;
and,
in accordance with a determination that the first input meets
second appearance manipulation criteria, wherein the second
appearance-manipulation criteria include a criterion that is met when
the characteristic of the contact exceeds a second threshold, greater
than the first threshold, during the first input, change the appearance
of the interactive user interface object based on lateral movement of
the contact across the touch-sensitive surface that is detected after the
characteristic of the contact exceeds the second threshold.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2020-004066
Application 15/620,716
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rosenberg US 10,019,096 B1 July 10, 2018
Freed US 9,030,419 B1 May 12, 2015
Davidson US 8,209,628 B1 June 26, 2012
Lewbel US 9,760,241 B1 Sept. 12, 2017
Lee US 6,906,712 B2 June 14, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14–16, 21 and 24–26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Rosenberg. Final Act. 3.2
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 17, 18, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg and Freed. Final Act. 17.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rosenberg, Freed, and Davidson. Final Act. 22.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rosenberg, and Davidson. Final Act. 23.
Claims 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rosenberg, and Lewbel. Final Act. 24.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rosenberg, Freed and Lewbel. Final Act. 26.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rosenberg and Lee. Final Act. 26

2 We note that the Examiner identifies claim 21 as included in the
anticipation rejection on page 10 of the Final Action, even though the
Examiner omitted claim 21 from the heading of the anticipation rejection on
page 3 of the Final Action.
Appeal 2020-004066
Application 15/620,716
4

OPINION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14–16, and 24–26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Rosenberg. Final Act. 3. Appellant
argues the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14–16, and 24–26 based on
independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 13.
We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Rosenberg do not
disclose all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as
recited in the claim. In particular, we agree with Appellant that Rosenberg
does not disclose “a second threshold, greater than the first threshold,” for
disambiguating between, on the one hand, (A) an input that changes the
appearance of a user interface object “based on the characteristic of the
contact, ... independent of lateral movement of the contact,” with a first
precondition requiring that the characteristic of the contact (of the first input)
exceed the first threshold, and on the other hand, (B) an input that changes
the appearance of the (same) user interface object “based on lateral
movement of the contact,” with a second precondition requiring that the
characteristic of the contact (of the first input) exceed the second (greater)
threshold. See Reply Br. 9.
Rather, the cited portions of Rosenberg disclose a software button
(i.e., soft button 500 shown in Figure 5 of Rosenberg) that can be configured
to detect multiple pressure thresholds. See Ans. 6–7. Yet, the cited portions
of Rosenberg do not expressly or inherently disclose:
in accordance with a determination that the first input meets second
appearance manipulation criteria, wherein the second appearance-
manipulation criteria include a criterion that is met when the
characteristic of the contact exceeds a second threshold, greater than
Appeal 2020-004066
Application 15/620,716
5
the first threshold, during the first input, change the appearance of the
interactive user interface object based on lateral movement of the
contact across the touch-sensitive surface that is detected after the
characteristic of the contact exceeds the second threshold

as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellant that in the
cited portions of Rosenberg, a lateral movement of hand 502 over the soft
button 500 will cause an appearance change to list 506, without requiring
that a characteristic of the contact exceeds a second threshold, greater than
the first threshold, during the first input.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and for the
same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 11, 12, 14–16,
21, and 24–26. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5–10, 17–
20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg
and Freed, because the Examiner has not shown that the additionally cited
secondary references cure Rosenberg’s deficiencies, as discussed above
regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejections.
In particular, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14–16,
21 and 24–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We reverse the rejection of claims 3 3,
5–10, 17– 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2020-004066
Application 15/620,716
6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 11,
12, 14–16,
21, 24–26
102 Rosenberg 1, 2, 4, 11,
12, 14–16,
21, 24–26
3, 5, 6, 8,
17, 18, 20,
23
103 Rosenberg, Freed 3, 5, 6, 8,
17, 18, 20,
23
7 103 Rosenberg, Freed,
Davidson
7
9 103 Rosenberg,
Davidson
9
10, 13 103 Rosenberg, Lewbel 10, 13
19 103 Rosenberg, Freed,
Lewbel
19
22 103 Rosenberg, Lee 22
Overall
Outcome
1–26

REVERSED