Ex Parte Moshiri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

13518058 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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.
13/518,058 06/21/2012 Negar Moshiri 0320-130-3 3281
113648 7590 02/21/2017
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404-7999
EXAMINER
CALDERON IV, ALVARO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEGAR MOSHIRI, WILLIAM A. ROUADY,
AHMED K. ZUBAIR, RICHARD J. VARY,
PETER C. WOOD, and BRADLEY S. DYER
Appeal 2016-003682
Application 13/518,058
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-003682
Application 13/518,058
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—3, 5—8, and 10-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a TV internet browser. Claims 1 and 6,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for zooming and panning of displayed web
content comprising:
displaying said web content;
receiving a user input to exit a scroll mode and enter a
combination zooming/panning mode;
receiving a scroll wheel rotation input while in said
combination zooming/panning mode;
zooming, in response to said scroll wheel rotation input,
into or away from said displayed web content;
receiving, while in said combination zooming/panning
mode, another user input together with input associated with
movement of a pointing device; and
panning, in response to said another user input and said
input associated with movement of said pointing device, said
displayed web content in a direction associated with said
movement of said pointing device,
wherein said zooming step further comprises:
zooming into said displayed web content if said scroll
wheel rotation input is associated with one or more forward
clicks of said scroll wheel; and
2
Appeal 2016-003682
Application 13/518,058
zooming away from said displayed web content if said
scroll wheel rotation input is associated with one or more
backward clicks of said scroll wheel.
6. A TV internet browser displayed on a user interface of a
television, comprising:
a display region for displaying web content on said
television;
a cursor, displayed over said web content, and movable in
response to pointing input received by said TV internet browser;
an input interface for receiving user inputs to control said
TV internet browser, including scroll wheel rotational input,
scroll wheel button input, another button input and pointer
movement input; and
a mode control function configured to switch between a
scroll mode and a combination zooming/panning mode in
response to a user input, wherein, when in said combination
zooming/panning mode, said mode control function operates to:
(a) zoom, in response to said scroll wheel rotation input,
into or away from said displayed web content; and
(b) pan, in response to said another button input and said
pointer movement input, said displayed web content in a
direction associated with movement of a pointing device,
wherein said zoom function further comprises:
zooming into said displayed web content if said scroll
wheel rotation input is associated with one or more forward
clicks of said scroll wheel; and
3
Appeal 2016-003682
Application 13/518,058
zooming away from said displayed web content if said
scroll wheel rotation input is associated with one or more
backward clicks of said scroll wheel.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gordon US 2002/0140665 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
Wroblewski US 2006/0250358 A1 Nov. 9,2006
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 6—8 and 10 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (software per
se).
Claims 1—3, 5—8, and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gordon in view of Wroblewski.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner maintains:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a TV
internet browser covers software per se in view of the ordinary
and customary meaning of an internet browser, even when
displayed on a user interface of a television, because as recited
the claims are drawn to the software viewed through said
television and not to the television itself. Software per se is not
a ‘process,’ a ‘machine,’ a ‘manufacture,’ or a ‘composition of
matter’ as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the purpose of prior
4
Appeal 2016-003682
Application 13/518,058
art analysis, the Office will not give patentable weight to
preambles oriented towards said ‘TV internet browser’.
(Final Act. 2—3).
Appellants contend:
In addition, when considering the claims as a whole, the
claims are directed to an apparatus and not software per se as
alleged by the Final Office Action. The claims involve a
television and a user interface which controls the television and
its content by way of the TV internet browser. The web content
is displayed on the display region (e.g., display window 1102)
which is displayed on the television. The television’s user
interface via the TV internet browser displayed on the user
interface, allows for a user to provide inputs to control and
manipulate the web content through a pointing device, for
example. Hence, the claims are directed to a specific technology
(e.g., controlling web content), are directed to a ‘particular
apparatus or machinery’ (e.g., a television and television user
interface), and are directed to a ‘particular end use,’ (e.g.,
controlling displayed web content, which involves zooming and
panning). (See Gottschalk v. Benson. 409 U.S. 63, 64 (1972)).
Although not alleged by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action, it is also respectfully submitted that claims 6-8 and 10
are not directed to an abstract idea.
(App. Br. 5). For the reasons argued by Appellants, we agree with
Appellants that independent claim 6 is directed to an apparatus and not
software per se. As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 6 and dependent claims 7, 8, and 10.1
1 We make no findings regarding Appellants’ arguments regarding the two
part analysis for abstract ideas because the Examiner has expressly stated
that the rejection is not based thereon, and Appellants arguments are thereby
moot. (Ans. 4).
5
Appeal 2016-003682
Application 13/518,058
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to Appellants’ arguments regarding the obviousness
rejection, a majority of Appellants’ arguments concern the Gordon reference
because the Examiner finds that Gordon teaches a majority of the claim
limitations with the exception of a TV browser or web content. (App. Br. 9—
14; Final Act. 3—7). We address the prior art rejection set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action.
In any further prosecution on the merits, we note that the Wroblewski
reference is assigned to the same real party in interest and contains many of
the same drawings. The prior art pointing device is the same as in the
present invention, but Appellants have found a new use of prior art sensor to
different data content. The Examiner may further consider the pointing
device/interface of the Wroblewski reference with regards to other known
sequences of inputs and for other known data contents would constitute
non-functional descriptive material that does not change the functionality of
the method or the apparatus.
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend that “the
structure of Gordon’s system involves moving the viewport or changing the
size of the viewport, not moving or changing the size of the content,” but the
language of independent claim 1 recites “panning said displayed web
content in a direction associated with said movement of said pointing
device.” (App. Br. 14).
In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner maintains:
Such arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111 (b)
because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define
a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the
6
Appeal 2016-003682
Application 13/518,058
language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the
references (i.e. Appellants offers no accompanying explanation
as to how Gordon’s zooming and panning via its viewport would
not have read on the actual claims, let alone as to how one of
ordinary skill in the art could have possibly interpreted the
‘spreadsheets, photographs, graphic arts, documents, and games’
that are effectively zoomed and/or panned as anything other than
‘content’).
(Ans. 5) (fn. omitted).
The Examiner does not respond to Appellants’ argument because the
Examiner finds Appellants’ argument to be unresponsive to the rejection,
where generally the relative motion of the content in the viewport is
changed. We disagree with the Examiner and find that the Gordon reference
expressly states:
More specifically, conventions used in the broadcast industry for
panning, tilting, and zooming television cameras are mapped
onto a computer’s mouse and software, to accomplish the
framing and sizing of a viewport displayed on the screen of a
computer. In the context of the present invention, this mimicking
may be referred to as effecting television-camera like framing of
a viewport.
(Gordon 19). The Gordon reference further discloses “a suite of five input
activities is implemented: moving the cursor both horizontally and
vertically, moving a viewport both horizontally and vertically; and
preferably, also controlling the size of the viewport.” (Gordon 110).
Consequently, we agree with Appellants that the Gordon reference
teaches movement of the viewport, rather than movement of the web
content. As a result, the Examiner has not made factual findings with
respect to the express claim language by not responding to Appellants’
7
Appeal 2016-003682
Application 13/518,058
argument. Additionally, we note that the language of independent claims 1
and 6 contains plural inputs, and the Examiner appears to rely upon the
scroll wheel switch for both the claimed “a user input to exit a scroll mode”
and the “another user input.” Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claim 6 which
contain similar limitations.2
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6—8 and 10 based upon a lack
of statutory subject matter, and the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—3,
5—8, and 10 based upon obviousness over the combination of the Gordon
and Wroblewski references.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1—3, 5—8, and 10.
REVERSED
2 In any further prosecution on the merits, the Examiner may consider
paragraph 85 of the Wroblewski reference, which discusses panning and
relative movement with the input device.
8