Ex Parte Chaudhri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2017

12788279 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2017)

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.
12/788,279 05/26/2010 Imran Chaudhri 106842091000 (P8761US1) 6341
150004 7590 09/14/2017
DFNTONS T TS TIP. Annie
EXAMINER
P.O. Box 061080 HARRIS, DOROTHY H
Wacker Drive Station, Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2017 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):
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IMRAN CHAUDHRI
Appeal 2016-002765
Application 12/788,2791
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 20—32, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. A hearing was held on August 31, 2017. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to methods for “turning pages or other portions
of electronic documents” on a touch screen. Spec. 110.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2016-002765
Application 12/788,279
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A portable multifunction device, comprising:
a touch-sensitive display, wherein the touch-sensitive
display includes a touch area with a first touch area border
region and a second touch area border region that is distinct
from the first touch area border region;
one or more processors;
memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more
programs are stored in the memory and configured to be
executed by the one or more processors, the one or more
programs including instructions for:
displaying a current portion of an electronic
document;
detecting a first contact at the first touch area
border region;
detecting movement of the first contact from the
first touch area border region to the second touch area
border region, and determining the movement of the first
contact begins in the first touch area border region and
ends in the second touch area border region, wherein the
overall movement of the first contact from the first touch
area border region to the second touch area border region
is a diagonal2 movement; and
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether the term “diagonal” is sufficiently definite under 35U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Whether a line is diagonal is a matter of perspective. For
example, in Figure 4C of the Specification, line 452 is diagonal from the
perspective of a person whose head is upright because the entire touch
screen is tilted. Yet to a second person whose head is tilted at the same
angle as the touch screen, line 452 is not diagonal.
2
Appeal 2016-002765
Application 12/788,279
in response to detecting movement of the first
contact from the first touch area border region to the
second touch area border region, displaying a next
portion of the electronic document, wherein the first
touch area border region is located on a first side of the
touch area and the second touch area border region is
located on a second side of the touch area, the second
side of the touch area being adjacent to the first side of
the touch area.
Rejection
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 20—32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Petschnigg et al. (US
2010/0175018 Al; July 8, 2010), Nako et al. (US 6,788,292 Bl; Sept. 7,
2004); Ikeda et al. (US 2010/0013780 Al; Jan. 21, 2010), and Pallakoff (US
2005/0012723 Al; Jan. 20, 2005). Final Act. 3.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Petschnigg,
Nako, Ikeda, and Pallakoff teaches or suggests “determining the movement
of the first contact begins in the first touch area border region and ends in the
second touch area border region” and “the first touch area border region is
located on a first side of the touch area and the second touch area border
region is located on a second side of the touch area, the second side of the
touch area being adjacent to the first side of the touch area,” as recited in
claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Ikeda teaches or suggests “the
first touch area border region lies within a first predefined distance from a
comer of the touch area and the second touch area border region lies within
a second predefined distance from the comer of the touch area,” as recited in
claim 4?
3
Appeal 2016-002765
Application 12/788,279
3. Did the Examiner err in finding Ikeda teaches or suggests
“detecting movement of the first contact comprises detecting movement of
the first contact in compliance with one or more conditions, the one or more
conditions including that the first contact touches the second touch area
border region within a predefined distance from a comer of the touch area,”
as recited in claim 7?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23—27, and 30—32
Claim 1 recites “determining the movement of the first contact begins
in the first touch area border region and ends in the second touch area border
region” and “the first touch area border region is located on a first side of the
touch area and the second touch area border region is located on a second
side of the touch area, the second side of the touch area being adjacent to the
first side of the touch area.”
The Examiner relies on a combination of Petschnigg, Nako, Ikeda,
and Pallakoff for teaching these limitations. Final Act. 5—8. The Examiner
relies in part on Figure 4 of Petschnigg and the accompanying description.
Id. at 5 (citing Petschnigg Fig. 4, || 21^42).
Figure 4 of Petschnigg is reproduced below:
4
Appeal 2016-002765
Application 12/788,279
“FIG. 4 shows an example virtual page turn in response to an example
page-turning gesture.” Petschnigg 17. “In this scenario, a page-turning
gesture includes touching an outer comer of the page and dragging the
comer across the display.” Petschnigg 124; see also Ans. 5; App. Br. 13—
5
Appeal 2016-002765
Application 12/788,279
14. Figure 4 is broken up into four panels showing the progression of the
page turn over time. In the first panel, at time t0, finger 54 begins a page-
turning gesture at an outer comer 56, which is in the top-right comer of the
screen. Petschnigg 124. At times ti and t2, the user has moved their finger
down and to the left. Petschnigg || 25, 27. As the finger advances further
away from the top-right comer, “the page moves with finger 54,” thereby
“providing a visual simulation of page turning in a conventional book.”
Petschnigg || 25—26. Thus, moving the user’s finger further away from the
top-right comer reveals more of the next two pages while obscuring more of
the current two pages. Petschnigg || 25—29. “As shown at time t.vi, if the
page-turning gesture advances to completion, the virtual page turn
substantially fully covers . . . first page 44 [i.e., the old page] with second
page 48 [i.e., the new page].” Petschnigg 129; see also Ans. 5.
Appellant argues “Petschnigg’s gesture begins in an outer corner of
the display, not in a first touch area border region located on a first side of
the touch area.” App. Br. 15 (citation omitted). Petschnigg’s touch screen,
however, consists of four sides: top, bottom, left, and right. Thus,
Petschnigg’s top-right comer is located on a first side of the touch area (i.e.,
the top). This is substantively identical to the Specification’s disclosure of
region 506 at the bottom of the touch screen. Spec. Fig. 5B, || 122, 129; see
also App. Br. 6 (relying on same as supporting one of the “side” limitations).
Appellant further contends “Petschnigg does not disclose determining
that the movement of the contact ends in a second touch area border region
located on a second side adjacent the first side.” App. Br. 15. However,
dragging a finger to “completion” on the far left side of the touch screen as
6
Appeal 2016-002765
Application 12/788,279
shown in Petschnigg’s Figure 4 at time tdoes teach or suggest determining
that the movement ends on the left side. Petschnigg 129; Ans. 3.
Appellant also argues “when [Petschnigg’s] page-turning gesture
‘advances to completion’, the contact location is nowhere near a side of the
touch area on the display adjacent to where the movement of the contact
began.” App. Br. 15 (citing Petschnigg 129). Yet the claims require that
the sides be adjacent, not the regions. Petschnigg’s top side is adjacent to
the left side because the two sides meet in the top-left comer. See also App.
Br. 15—16 (discussing Petschnigg Fig. 6, which depicts dragging the finger
from the top-right comer to the bottom-left comer).
Appellant further contends “the recognition of Petschnigg’s page-
turning gesture is not conditioned upon a determination that the contact
begins on one side of the touch area and ends in an adjacent side of the touch
area.” App. Br. 15. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of
the claims as presently written. Claim 1 recites “in response to detecting
movement of the first contact from the first touch area border region to the
second touch area border region, displaying a next portion of the electronic
document.” In Petschnigg Figure 4, at time t3y4, a “next portion” of the
electronic document is displayed in response to detecting that the user’s
finger has moved to “completion” on the far left side. For example, the
middle of pages 248 and 249 (also labeled 48 and 58) are newly displayed at
time 13A. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “a next portion”
is not limited to an entire page or slide. Thus, the claims as presently written
do not preclude turning part of the page prior to completion of the gesture.
Finally, Appellant argues “Petschnigg teaches away from the pending
claims” because “Petschnigg teaches that its goal is to mimic a gesture of a
7
Appeal 2016-002765
Application 12/788,279
real person flipping a page of a physical book” rather than use a two­
boundary gesture. App. Br. 18 (citing Petschnigg 124). We are not
persuaded by this argument, however, because Petschnigg teaches a two­
boundary gesture as discussed above. Moreover, we agree with the
Examiner that the cited paragraph in Petschnigg is not a teaching away. See
Petschnigg 124 (“In this scenario, a page-turning gesture includes . . .,
similar to ... a conventional book .... Other page-turning gestures may be
recognized without departing from the scope of the present disclosure.”)
(emphasis added); Ans. 4 (“Petschnigg does not criticize, discredit or
otherwise discourage the solution”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 3, 10, 11, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23—27, and 30—32, which Appellant argues
are patentable for similar reasons. See Reply Br. 2; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 4, 22, and 28
Claim 4 recites “the first touch area border region lies within a first
predefined distance from a comer of the touch area and the second touch
area border region lies within a second predefined distance from the comer
of the touch area.”
The Examiner relies on Ikeda for this limitation. Final Act. 9 (citing
Ikeda Figs. 11—14, 40-44); Ans. 5. The Examiner finds “Applicant claims a
combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective
functions of those old elements.” Final Act. 9.
Appellant argues “Ikeda simply does not define any region on the
display using a distance between the region and a comer of the display.”
8
Appeal 2016-002765
Application 12/788,279
App. Br. 33; see also Reply Br. 14 (“there is no mention of determining
whether the location ... is within a certain distance from a comer . . .”).
Appellant’s argument, however, is not commensurate with the scope
of the claim as written. Claim 4 merely requires that each border region lies
within a predefined distance from the comer; it does not require any active
defining of a region using that distance, nor any determining based on that
distance. In Ikeda, the size of the touch screen is fixed (i.e., predefined).
See Ikeda Figs. 11—14, 40-44. Thus, the border regions do lie within a
predefined distance from the comer (i.e., the fixed size of the touch screen).
We therefore are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, and
claims 22 and 28, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons.
See Reply Br. 2; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 7, 23, and 29
Claim 7 recites “detecting movement of the first contact comprises
detecting movement of the first contact in compliance with one or more
conditions, the one or more conditions including that the first contact
touches the second touch area border region within a predefined distance
from a comer of the touch area.”
The Examiner relies on Ikeda for this limitation. Final Act. 10 (citing
Ikeda Figs. 11—14, 40-44, || 10-12); Ans. 5—6. The Examiner finds “Ikeda
illustrates in figures 11-14 and 40-44 a diagonal gesture which starts at one
border region of a display screen and ends at an adjacent border region.”
Ans. 5.
Appellant argues “none of [the four prior art references] discloses a
page-turning gesture recognized by an end touch area being in a specifically
9
Appeal 2016-002765
Application 12/788,279
defined region on the display, e.g., to a second touch area border region
within a predefined distance from a comer.” App. Br. 33.
Appellant’s argument, however, is not commensurate with the scope
of the claim as presently written. The broadest reasonable interpretation of
claim 7 requires detecting movement, not detecting compliance or
conditions. As discussed above for claim 1, the prior art teaches or suggests
detecting movement, and as discussed above for claim 4, the prior art
teaches or suggests that the movement is in compliance with the recited
condition, i.e., the movement includes a first contact touching the second
touch area border region within a predefined distance from a comer of the
touch area.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, and
claims 23 and 29, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons.
See Reply Br. 2; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 20-32.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
10