Ex Parte Davis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

10452233 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 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.
10/452,233 05/30/2003 Mark Davis QCP142813 8462
7590
Paradice and Li LLP/Qualcomm
1999 S. Bascom Ave.
Suite 300
Campbell, CA 95008
EXAMINER
EURICE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
uspto@paradiceli.com
william @paradiceli. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK DAVIS and CARLO BERNOULLI
Appeal 2016-003354
Application 10/452,233
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a Decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 72—81, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-003354
Application 10/452,233
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to user-interface features for computers
with contact-sensitive displays. Spec. 1:11—12. Claims 72 and 77 are
independent. Claim 72 is reproduced below for reference:
72. A method for configuring a user-interface of a mobile
computing device, the method comprising:
displaying a persistent task bar on a lower edge of a
touch-sensitive display of the mobile computing device, the
persistent task bar including a number of persistent icons that,
when selected by a user, cause the mobile computing device to
launch a number of respective executable applications;
displaying a plurality of active icons in an active portion
of the touch-sensitive display located above the persistent task
bar, wherein each of the active icons, when selected by the user,
causes the mobile computing device to launch a corresponding
executable application;
detecting a tap and hold gesture on a selected one of the
plurality of active icons;
in response to detecting the tap and hold gesture on the
selected one of the plurality of active icons, enabling the
selected active icon to be moved;
detecting a drag gesture of the selected active icon from a
first location in the active portion to a second location in the
active portion; and
in response to detecting the drag gesture of the selected
active icon from the first location in the active portion to the
second location in the active portion, moving the selected active
icon from the first location to the second location, wherein the
second location is different from the first location.
2
Appeal 2016-003354
Application 10/452,233
References and Rejections
The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Berman
Kay
Rosenberg
Hinckley
Steele
US 5,760,773
US 6,096,094
US 2001/0002126 A1
US 2002/0021278 A1
US 2002/0091700 A1
June 2, 1998
Aug. 1,2000
May 31, 2001
Feb. 21,2002
July 11,2002
Claims 72, 74, 75, 77, 79, and 80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steele, Rosenberg, and Berman. Final
Act. 2.
Claims 73 and 78 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Steele, Rosenberg, Berman, and Kay. Final Act. 13.
Claims 76 and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Steele, Rosenberg, Berman, and Hinckley. Final Act. 16.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
A. Independent Claim 72
Appellants contend the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 72
is in error, because “the Examiner has failed to satisfy the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness due to the Examiner’s
3
Appeal 2016-003354
Application 10/452,233
continued unreasonably broad interpretation of the claims.” Reply Br. 3.
Particularly, Appellants argue “the Examiner has failed to identify prior art
that discloses ‘tap and hold gestures’ and ‘drag gestures’ being performed on
a ‘selected active icon’ displayed in ‘an active portion of a touch-sensitive
display of mobile computing device,’ as recited in claim 72.” App. Br. 16.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive because Appellants do
not show the claim, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and
consistent with the Specification1, precludes the teachings of the cited
references. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Rather, we find the Examiner has reasonably construed the
claim limitations, and we agree that the combination of Steele, Rosenberg,
and Berman teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. See Final Act. 2—
21; Ans. 2—22. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our
own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
As found by the Examiner, Steele teaches handheld computers
displaying persistent task bars which include icons. See Final Act. 2—3; Ans.
3; Steele, Figs. 13, 41. Steele further teaches an active icon above a task bar.
See Final Act. 3; Ans. 7; Steele, Fig. 41, || 120, 178. The Examiner finds
one of ordinary skill would modify Steele’s handheld computer to display
application-launching active icons as claimed, in view of Rosenberg’s
teachings of active regions of a display including plural icons to execute
applications and Berman’s teachings of application icons. See Final Act. 21;
Ans. 3, 7—8; Rosenberg, Fig. 19,14; Berman, Fig. 1, 25:30-31. The
Examiner further finds the claim requirements, of detecting a tap and hold
gesture and moving an icon to locations in the active portion of the screen,
1 We refer to the original Specification, as filed May 30, 2003.
4
Appeal 2016-003354
Application 10/452,233
are obvious in view of Steele’s tap and drag gestures for icons, Rosenberg’s
select and drag gestures for windows containing icons2, and Berman’s
teaching of press-and-hold gestures for icons. See Final Act. 3—6; Ans. 15—
19; Steele 111, 167; RosenbergH218, 243; Berman, Fig. 1, 21:15—20,
22:6-9.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Appellants do not provide
sufficient argument, evidence, or citations to limiting definitions in the
Specification3, to persuade us the claim terms are distinguishable from the
teachings of the references as discussed above. Thus, Appellants do not
persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of cited
references teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Rather, we find the
combination of Steele, Rosenberg, and Berman is no more than a
combination of familiar elements according to known methods which yields
predictable results — an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007).
B. Dependent Claim 73
Claim 73 recites “wherein at least one of the plurality of active icons
is to launch an executable application developed by a third-party developer,
the third-party developer being different than a manufacturer of the mobile
2 Additionally, we note Rosenberg teaches dragging, or moving, an icon.
See Rosenberg || 256, 267, 286.
3 See, e.g., Spec. 15:17—19 (“task bar 426 may be persistent, in that it is
either always present, or present automatically depending on certain
applications or functions performed by the handheld computer”); compare
Steele, Fig. 41 (displaying a toolbar when a definition is selected). See also
Spec. 8:12—13 (“‘active icon’ means an icon that has some functionality
associated with it”); compare Rosenberg 14 (“targets can include, for
example, icons for executing application programs and manipulating files.”).
5
Appeal 2016-003354
Application 10/452,233
computing device.” The Examiner relies on Kay for teaching a third-party
developer, and correctly finds “Kay discloses a computing device . . . which
operates on software developed by a third-party developer, the third-party
developer being different than a manufacturer of the mobile computing
device . . ., evidencing the common practice in the art of incorporating
software ‘developed by a third-party developer.’” Ans. 21—22 (citing Kay
1:42—50, 3:62). We agree, and we adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions as our own. See Final Act. 13—14; Ans. 20—22. From the record
before us, we do not find that combining Kay’s teachings with Steele,
Rosenberg, and Berman, as found by the Examiner, was “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
CONCFUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 72 and
dependent claim 73. Appellants advance no further argument on claims 74—
76 and 77—81. See App. Br. 17, 18. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 72—81 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6