Ex Parte LIRA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

13731382 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131731,382 12/31/2012 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 .193.1.1.11 4811
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
Appeal2015-001776
Application 13/731,382
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 13-20, 27-32, and 39-50. Claims 13 and 27 are
independent. Claims 1-12, 21-26, and 33-38 are cancelled. This appeal is
related to an appeal (2015-002217) for co-pending application 12/963,444.
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. 31, 2012 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed Dec.
18, 2013; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Aug. 14, 2014; (4) the
Appeal2015-001776
Application 13/731,382
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 27 is representative and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:
27. A method comprising:
displaying a first portion of content, wherein the content
comprises a plurality of portions;
shifting, using at least one processor, displayed content in
response to a touch input, wherein the touch input comprises
touching a portion of a touchscreen corresponding to a first
point of the displayed content and dragging from the first point
to a second point on the touchscreen;
determining whether the touch input satisfies a
predetermined threshold;
if the touch input satisfies the predetermined threshold,
shifting the displayed content from the first portion to a second
portion from the plurality of portions of the content; and
if the touch input does not satisfj; the predetermined
threshold, shifting the displayed content within the first portion
of content.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Ogura et al. ("Ogura")
Anwar
us 5,907,327
US 7,450,114 B2
May 25, 1999
Nov. 11, 2008
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed Sept. 11, 2014; and (5) the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed Nov. 12, 2014.
2
Appeal2015-001776
Application 13/731,382
REJECTIONS
The Final Action indicates claims 13-16, 20-23, 25-27, 30-34, 36-
41, and 43--45 are rejected under pre-AIA (America Invents Act) 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ogura. Final Act. 3. Claims 21-26, and
33-38 are cancelled, however, and thus, claims 13-16, 20, 27, 30-32, 39-
41, and 43--45 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claims 18 and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ogura. Final Act. 11.
Claims 17, 19, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ogura in view of Anwar. Final Act. 12.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellant. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellant 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 "if the touch
input does not satisfy the predetermined threshold, shifting the displayed
content within the first portion of content," as recited in claim 27?
DISCUSSION
The Examiner relies on Ogura's discussion of activating a drag lock
mode by sliding a finger a predetermined distance and dragging an object
across a display screen to disclose the disputed limitations. Final Act. 7
(citing Ogura col. 8, 11. 23---63, col. 9, 11. 30-32, and Figs. 5 and 6).
3
Appeal2015-001776
Application 13/731,382
Specifically, with respect to not activating the drag lock mode by
failing to slide the finger the predetermined distance, the Examiner states
"this can be interpreted as the state when touch input doesn 't exceed a
predetermined value, there would be no shift of display content by
dragging." Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that "the Office Action clearly errs, however, by
rejecting the recited element with the reasoning that Ogura discloses there
would be no shift. Or, in other words, the Examiner cites to disclosure in
Ogura and provides an explanation that is opposite of what the claim
actually recites." Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellant's contention that the Examiner fails to
demonstrate that Ogura discloses the disputed features. We note that the
rejection rationale appears to ignore the word "shifting" in the disputed
limitation, where the Examiner states "this can be interpreted as the state
when touch input doesn 't exceed a predetermined value, there would be no
shift of display content by dragging." Final Act. 7; (emphasis added). That
is, the record lacks sufficient explanation of how the Specification would
support an interpretation of "shifting the displayed content within the first
portion of content" that encompasses the Examiner's finding that in Ogura
"there would be no shift of display content by dragging." Id. During
examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and the language should be read in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted).
4
Appeal2015-001776
Application 13/731,382
Also, in the Answer, the Examiner relies on Ogura's disclosure of
scrolling but fails to indicate where Ogura actually discloses scrolling in the
context of the other steps Ogura is relied upon to disclose. Ans. 5. To the
contrary, Ogura relates to enabling a drag lock mode and dragging an object
across a display screen, such as window 22, and is silent with respect to
scrolling. See generally Ogura col. 8, 11. 23-63 and col. 9, 11. 26--36.
Although Ogura illustrates at least one scroll bar in window 22 that is to be
dragged (id. Fig. 6), the Examiner does not show how the at least one scroll
bar relates to the enabling of a drag lock mode and the dragging of an object
such that Ogura discloses the disputed recitations.
For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has
shown that Ogura discloses "if the touch input does not satisfy the
predetermined threshold, shifting the displayed content within the first
portion of content," 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 27.
We also cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 13, which recites
commensurate limitations, and of dependent claims 14--20, 28-32, and 39-
50, which stand with their respective independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13-20, 27-32,
and 39-50.
REVERSED
5