Ex Parte OIWADownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 12, 201613036198 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/036, 198 02/28/2011 27562 7590 09/14/2016 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR RyotaOIWA 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. LB-723-3015 4469 EXAMINER SITTA, GRANT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/14/2016 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RYOTA OIWA Appeal2015-004567 Application 13/036,198 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2015-004567 Application 13/036,198 INVENTION This invention is directed to a program to display a selection of objects. When an end selection object reaches a predetermined position on the display area as a result of movement of the selected objects, the objects are moved in a direction perpendicular. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below. 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a display control program executed by a computer of a display control apparatus which displays, on a display device, a selection object selected in accordance with an operation by a user, the display control program causing the computer to perform at least: first movement control for moving, relative to a display area of the display device, a plurality of selection objects having at least one part thereof displayed on the display area, based on an output signal outputted from an input device; and second movement control for moving, relative to the display area, in a direction different from a direction in which the plurality of selection objects have been moved by the first movement control, when an end-located selection object among the plurality of selection objects reaches a predetermined position on the display area as a result of the first movement control moving the plurality of selection objects, at least one selection object displayed on the display area among the plurality of selection objects, wherein the second movement control moves the at least one selection object in a direction perpendicular to or approximately perpendicular to the direction of the movement by the first movement control. 2 Appeal2015-004567 Application 13/036,198 REJECTION AT ISSUE 1 The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Platzer et al. (US 2008/0165210 Al; July 10, 2008) and Beri et al. (US 6, 141,018; Oct. 31, 2000). Final Act. 4--20. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments. Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 21. Appellant contends with respect to independent claim 1 that the combination of Platzer and Beri does not teach a movement control that moves the object in a direction perpendicular to the direction of movement of the first control. App. Br. 16. Specifically, Appellant argues that Platzer teaches when an object is scrolled and reaches a virtual boundary, the object is subsequently moved in a reverse direction (i.e. if the scroll is horizontal, the object with "bounce" horizontally from the virtual boundary, and when scroll is vertical, the bounce is vertical). App. Br. 16-17. Further, Appellant argues that Beri, like Platzer, teaches when scrolling, bouncing is in the same direction as the scrolling. App. 17-18. Additionally, Appellant asserts that though the references teach scrolling vertically and horizontally, they do 1 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief dated September 24, 2014 ("Br."), the Reply Brief dated March 10, 2015 ("Reply Br."), Examiner's Answer mailed January 12, 2015 ("Ans."), and the Final Action mailed March 6, 2014 ("Final Act."). 3 Appeal2015-004567 Application 13/036,198 not teach that the bounce is perpendicular to the direction of scrolling as claimed. App. Br 18-19. The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments on pages 2 through 8 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that 1) Platzer teaches bounce in the vertical direction and not in the horizontal direction; 2) Beri teaches horizontal scrolling and horizontal bouncing; 3) the skilled artisan would substitute Platzer's vertical bounce with the horizontal bounce of Beri (i.e. have horizontal scrolling with vertical bounce); and 4) that the combination provides the predictable result of providing the user notification the end of a scroll has been reached. Ans. 4-- 7. We have reviewed the Examiner's rationale and the teachings and concur with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. We consider that both references teach the perceived "bouncing" to provide an indication that the end of a scroll has been reached. The mixing and matching of directions of scrolling and bouncing when the end of the scrolling is reached does not change the function of the bouncing (to alert the user, via movement of the item, that the end of the scrolling is reached) and as such the Examiner's combination is reasonable. We further note, the Examiner has shown that scrolling and bouncing in vertical and horizontal directions are known, thus there are limited numbers of combinations of scrolling and bounce (horizontal scroll, horizontal bounce; vertical scroll, vertical bounce; horizontal scroll, vertical bounce; vertical scroll, horizontal bounce) two of which meet the claim movement perpendicular to the first motion. Accordingly, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error and we 4 Appeal2015-004567 Application 13/036,198 sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 2 through 4, 7, 8, and 10 through 21 which are argued with claim 1. With respect to claims 5 and 9, Appellant argues that the combination of Platzer and Beri does not teach that the distance of the second movement (bounce height) is dependent upon the velocity with which the object is moved (swipe speed). App Br. 23; Reply Br. 4--5. The Examiner in response states: Without out [sic] velocity 510-1 there would be no movement in the opposite direction. Therefore, distance 512-2 of the bounce is based on the velocity when reaching the predetermined position on the display area (i.e., a velocity, a distance). The current claim language just bases a movement distance on a movement velocity and does not require, as applicant contends, the amount of bounce depends of the magnitude of the velocity to the particular object. Ans. 8 (discussing Platzer, Figs. 5A-5C). The Examiner finds that Platzer's discussion of the bounce velocity being less than the scroll velocity, and the dampening of the motion; to suggest that the distance of the perceived bounce is suppressed based upon the velocity of the scroll motion. Ans. 9 (citing Platzer, para. 75). We have reviewed the teachings in Platzer and concur with the Examiner. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 9. DECISION We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). 5 Appeal2015-004567 Application 13/036,198 AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation