Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 12, 20212020004066 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation