Ex Parte Lira

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

12963444 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/963,444 12/08/2010 Luigi Lira
107193 7590 08/17/2016
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
19487.193.1.1 2851
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2016 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
tkusitor@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUIGI LIRA1
Appeal2015-002217
Application 12/963,444
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 13-34. Claims 13 and 26 are independent. Claims 1-12
are cancelled. This appeal is related to an appeal (2015-001776) for co-
pending application 13/731,382. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. See
Appeal Brief 2.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellant's Specification filed
Dec. 8, 2010 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed Jan. 3,
2014; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Aug. 14, 2014; (4) the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed Oct. 2, 2014; and (5) the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed Dec. 2, 2014.
Appeal2015-002217
Application 12/963,444
BACKGROl.J1'-JD
According to Appellant, the application relates to a mobile device and
a computer-implemented method of aligning visible portions of information
within a display to allow for improved browsing by inferring the
navigational intent of a user, even when user input is imprecise. Appeal
Br. 8. Claim 13 is representative and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:
13. A computer-implemented method comprising:
providing a viewing window on a display, the viewing window
including a visible portion of information;
detecting a motion associated with an input tool;
changing the visible portion of information, from a first portion
of information to a second portion of information, based on the
detected motion associated with the input tool;
determining, using a processor, whether a magnitude of the
detected motion exceeds a threshold value; and
changing, after the detected motion associated with the input
tool, the visible portion of information to the first portion of
information when the detected motion does not exceed the threshold
value.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Ogura et al. ("Ogura")
Anwar
us 5,907,327
US 7,450,114 B2
2
May 25, 1999
Nov. 11, 2008
Appeal2015-002217
Application 12/963,444
REJECTIONS
Claims 13, 14, 22-27, 33 and 34 stand rejected under pre-AIA
(America Invents Act) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ogura.
Final Act. 18. Claims 15 and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogura. Final Act. 22. Claims 16-21
and 29-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ogura in view of Anwar. Final Act. 23. Claims 13-34 stand rejected
for obviousness-type double patenting based on claims 26-42 of U.S. Patent
Application No. 13/730,707. Final Act. 3-18.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and issues
raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that
have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before us.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Ogura discloses "changing the
visible portion of information, from a first portion of information to a
second portion of information, based on the detected motion associated with
the input tool," as recited in claim 13?
DISCUSSION
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b), 103(a)
The Examiner relies on Ogura's discussion of dragging an object,
such as window 22, across a display screen to disclose the disputed
limitations. Final Act. 19 (citing Ogura Fig. 6 and col. 9, 11. 30-32).
Specifically, the Examiner states "[ n ]ote that display content can be shifted
3
Appeal2015-002217
Application 12/963,444
during drag mode when touch input exceeds a predetermined value." Final
Act. 19.
Appellant contends that the Office Action errs because the cited
portions of Ogura "only explain that a user may move a window or window
frame with the device in drag lock mode." Appeal Br. 11. Specifically,
Appellant states:
Moving the window 22 from one location to another location
on the screen 20, however, does not "change the visible portion
of information, from a first portion of information to a second
portion of information." Rather, moving the window 22 to a
new location simply results in displaying the same exact
information that was in window 22, but just in a different
location on the screen.
Appeal Br. 12.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to demonstrate that
Ogura's moving of window 22 from one location to another location on the
screen 20 discloses "changing the visible portion of information, from a first
portion of information to a second portion of information," as claimed,
because moving or dragging window 22 to a new location merely results in
displaying the same information in a different location on the screen.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that Ogura's moving of frame 23
over item 22 discloses "changing the visible portion of information, from a
first portion of information to a second portion of information" because "the
area of 22 is interpreted as having plurality of portions." Ans. 2, 3.
While we agree with the Examiner's interpretation of window 22
having a plurality of portions, the Examiner fails to establish that frame 23 is
opaque. To the contrary, Ogura illustrates frame 23 as being transparent,
because in Ogura's illustration, portions of window 22 located under frame
4
Appeal2015-002217
Application 12/963,444
23 are still visible. Ogura Fig. 6. Therefore, because frame 23 is
transparent, moving frame 23, either partially or completely, over window
22 would not change the visible portion of information being displayed
because all portions of window 22 would still be visible.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has shown that
Ogura's discussion of dragging an object discloses "changing the visible
portion of information, from a first portion of information to a second
portion of information, based on the detected motion associated with the
input tool," as claimed.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other
contentions.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
We also cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 26, which
recites commensurate limitations, and of dependent claims 14--25 and 27-
34, which stand with their respective independent claims.
Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejections
The Examiner provisionally rejects all of the claims on appeal for
obviousness-type double patenting based on claims 26-42 of U.S. Patent
Application No. 13/730,707. Final Act. 3-18.
Appellant does not provide arguments disputing this rejection in the
Appeal Brief. Ans. 4; see also Reply Br. 2-7. However, we do not reach
the merits of the Examiner's provisional double patenting rejection because
the issue is not ripe for decision at this time, consistent with the holding of
Ex Parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BP AI 2010) (precedential).
5
Appeal2015-002217
Application 12/963,444
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13, 14, 22-27,
33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15 and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogura.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16-21 and 29-32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogura in view of
Anwar.
We do not reach the Examiner's obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 13-34.
REVERSED
6