Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 17, 2021

2020003643 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2021)

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. 14/290,850 05/29/2014 Nicholas ZAMBETTI P20005US1/63266-5900- US 1343 61725 7590 11/17/2021 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)(Apple) 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124 EXAMINER ELNAFIA, SAIFELDIN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/17/2021 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): padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com vskliba@morganlewis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NICHOLAS ZAMBETTI, CHANAKA G. KARUNAMUNI, IMRAN CHAUDHRI, CHRISTOPHER P. FOSS, EUGENE M. BISTOLAS, KYLE S. MACOMBER, KEITH W. RAUENBUEHLER, LEE S. BROUGHTON, and ARNOLD FREIDLING Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 10, 13–23, 26, and 29–42. Claims 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 2 8, 9, 11, 12, 24, 25, 27, and 28 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a device, method, and graphical user interface for moving user interface objects. Appellant discloses that “Such methods and interfaces optionally complement or replace conventional methods for moving user interface objects. Such methods and interfaces reduce the cognitive burden on a user and produce a more efficient human-machine interface. For battery-operated devices, such methods and interfaces conserve power and increase the time between battery charges.” Spec. ¶ 5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions which, when executed by an electronic device with a display and a touch-sensitive surface, cause the electronic device to: display a user interface with a plurality of content units, wherein: the plurality of content units includes a first set of two or more of the content units; the first set of content units includes a first content unit and a second content unit; the plurality of content units are arranged along a first scrolling axis in the user interface; and Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 3 a respective content unit is associated with corresponding metadata; while displaying the first content unit and the second content unit, detect only a single contact on the touch-sensitive surface and detect a first movement of only the single contact; and in response to detecting the first movement of only the single contact: move the first set of two or more of the content units perpendicular to the first scrolling axis in the user interface in accordance with the first movement of only the single contact; and for two or more respective content units in the first set of content units, display metadata for the respective content unit adjacent to the respective content unit that was not displayed immediately prior to detecting the first movement of the single contact, including concurrently displaying, on the display: first metadata for the first content unit adjacent to the first content unit; and second metadata, different from the first metadata, adjacent to the second content unit. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kocienda et al. US 2008/0165142 A1 July 10, 2008 Platzer et al. US 2008/0165210 A1 July 10, 2008 Anzures et al. US 2009/0007017 A1 Jan. 1, 2009 Storrusten US 2010/0134425 A1 June 3, 2010 Hull et al. US 2011/0124367 A1 May 26, 2011 Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 4 REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 7, 16–19, 23, 32, 33, 37, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Storrusten in view of Kocienda. Claims 4–6, 10, 20–22, 26, 34–36, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Storrusten in view of Kocienda and further in view of Anzures. Claims 13, 29, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Storrusten in view of Kocienda and further in view of Hull. Claims 14, 15, 30, 31, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Storrusten in view of Kocienda and further in view of Platzer. OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 103 Independent claims 1, 16, and 17 Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability and argues the claims together. Appeal Br. 10. We select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim for the group and will address Appellant’s arguments thereto. We further note that independent claims 16 and 17 contain similar limitations argued as illustrative claim 1. Appellant contends The cited references, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest “while displaying the first content unit and the second content unit, detect only a single contact on the touch- sensitive surface and detect a first movement of only the single contact; and in response to detecting the first movement of only the single contact: move the first set of two or more of the Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 5 content units perpendicular to the first scrolling axis in the user interface in accordance with the first movement of only the single contact; and for two or more respective content units in the first set of content units, display metadata for the respective content unit adjacent to the respective content unit that was not displayed immediately prior to detecting the first movement of the single contact.” Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant further contends that the Examiner presented a new ground of rejection of the claims by relying upon a new portion of the Storrusten reference. Reply Br. 2–3 (see Storrusten ¶ 42; Ans. 3). Appellant contends the combination of Storrusten and Kocienda does not produce the claimed outcome because it (1) does not “move the first set of two or more of the content units perpendicular to the first scrolling axis in the user interface in accordance with the first movement of only the single contact” and (2) does not “display metadata for the respective content unit adjacent to the respective content unit that was not displayed immediately prior to detecting the first movement of the single contact.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s Answer fails to clearly articulate an alleged motivation to combine the cited references. Reply Br. 7. Appellant also contends the Examiner’s Answer fails to articulate why the combination of the Storrusten and Kocienda references is not based on impermissible hindsight. Reply Br. 9. The Examiner generally finds that the combination of the Storrusten and Kocienda references teaches or suggests the claimed invention. Final Act. 5–9. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the Storrusten reference teaches “in response to detecting the first movement of the contact: move the first set of two or more of the content units Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 6 perpendicular to the first scrolling axis in the user interface in accordance with the first movement of the contact; and for two or more respective content units in the first set of content units, display metadata for the respective content unit adjacent to the respective content unit that was not displayed immediately prior to detecting the first movement of the contact (figs 4, 5 and Para 0038, wherein a multi-touch gesture that may be made over the scrollable list of items to change a displayed range of a list.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner additionally finds that metadata is displayed adjacent to the content. Final Act. 6–7 (see Storrusten ¶¶ 38, 47, 48; Figs. 13 and 14, 15 and 16). We disagree with the Examiner and find that Figures 13–16 of Storrusten show an expansion of the content unit and additional metadata included in the content unit rather than a movement of the content unit perpendicular to the scrolling axis and additional metadata adjacent to the set of content units with first and second metadata units. Although the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine the single touch gesture of the Kocienda reference in place of the multi-touch gesture of the Storrusten reference, where the Kocienda reference uses a single touch gesture for a temporary zoom of a portion of the content, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how substitution of the single touch gesture for a temporary zoom would work to resize and zoom the totality of the list of plural content items of the Storrusten. We further find that the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the resized totality of the list of plural content items where the claimed perpendicular movement to the Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 7 scrolling axis performs the two recited functions with a single contact gesture on the touch sensitive surface detecting a first movement of only the single contact. We further disagree with the Examiner and find that the zoom function of the Storrusten reference does not teach or suggest the movement of a plurality of content items, but merely re-sizes the specific portion of a content item at the same central location on the screen and resizes the content units accordingly with an expansion or a contraction of the dimensions of the information within the content unit with additional content added within the content units. The Examiner finds that “concurrently displaying, on the display: first metadata for the first content unit adjacent to the first content unit; and second metadata, different from the first metadata, adjacent to the second content unit (fig. 16 and Para 0048, wherein as depicted, a second, multi- touch gesture in which first and second touches are spread apart is used to expand list item 242 such that list item 242 is re-populated with additional text 246 (for more than one item), such as metadata regarding the list item, as well as an icon 248).” Ans. 7. The Examiner additionally finds “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to have modified a method as taught by Storrusten by incorporated the technique of Kocienda to include a magnification or zoom operation in response to detection of a single contact (one finger contact) in order to increase the effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction with portable multifunction devices (Para 0007, Kocienda).” Final Act. 8–9. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner attempts to further clarify the rejection and states Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 8 Storrusten taught in Para 0037, using two kinds of gesture first single touch input for scrolling of the list and a second multi touch for zoom in on a list view. In Para 0042 the user may perform the first and second gestures in a temporally overlapping manner by, for example, moving two touches along a scrolling direction while also changing a distance between the touches. The use of temporally overlapping first and second gestures allows a user to both scroll through a list, and change a zoom and/or scroll rate of the list, in a combined gesture. Kocienda disclosed in figs 5I, 5J, fig. 7 and Paras 0200-0212, explanation, in response to detect a finger contact 648 with the touch screen display, the insertion marker is expanded from a first size 656 to a second size 657, and a portion 650 of the graphics is expanded (zooming operation), which is used a single contact touch, so it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to have modified a method as taught by Storrusten by incorporating the technique of Kocienda to include a magnification or zoom operation in response to detection of a single contact (one finger contact) in order to increase the effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction with portable multifunction devices (Para 0007, Kocienda). Put simply the proposed combination is merely to replace the multi-touch gesture of Storrusten with the single touch gesture of Kocienda. Ans. 3–4. Although the Examiner additionally relies upon paragraph 42 of the Storrusten reference which teaches scrolling and zooming functions at the same time, the teachings of the Storrusten and Kocienda references do not teach or suggest the claimed while displaying the first content unit and the second content unit, detect only a single contact on the touch-sensitive surface and detect a first movement of only the single contact; and in response to detecting the first movement of only the single contact: Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 9 move the first set of two or more of the content units perpendicular to the first scrolling axis in the user interface in accordance with the first movement of only the single contact; and for two or more respective content units in the first set of content units, display metadata for the respective content unit adjacent to the respective content unit that was not displayed immediately prior to detecting the first movement of the single contact, including concurrently displaying, on the display. Therefore, Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness based thereon of illustrative independent claim 1 and independent claims 16 and 17 which included commensurate limitations. Dependent claim 42 With respect to dependent claim 42, Appellant argues that the Examiner did not specifically respond to Appellant’s argument and to the specific language of dependent claim 42. Appeal Br. 18–20. The Examiner repeats the similar content as set forth in the Final Action and additionally finds that icon 248 in figure 13 is to the right side of the “title.” Ans. 7. Appellant contends that the “Examiner does not discuss placement of metadata whatsoever, which is what claim 42 seeks to clarify. Parsing, the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner seems to be stating that the icon 248, which was previously not displayed, is displayed to the right of the content (e.g., ‘Title’). Figure 13 and 16.” Reply Br. 13. Specifically Appellant contends that Even if icon 248 could be construed as metadata, it still does not teach claim 42, because claim 42 specifies that the metadata Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 10 be placed adjacent to the content unit in “a second direction, opposite the first direction, along the second axis,” ... “including concurrently displaying, on the display: first metadata for the first content unit adjacent, in the second direction along the second axis, to the first content unit.” (Portion of claim 42, emphasis added) In other words, if the scrolling direction is vertical, the metadata is not placed beneath the content as it is in Storrusten. Here, the icon 248, while partially placed to the right of the “Title: Song l” area is still placed below, and therefore is not placed “adjacent, in the second direction [ opposite the first direction] along the second axis, to the first content unit.” Reply Br. 14. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not specifically address the location of metadata with regards to the claimed “in a second direction, opposite the first direction, along the second axis, to the respective content unit that was not displayed immediately prior to detecting the first movement of the single contact, including concurrently displaying, on the display.” The Examiner merely relies upon Figures 13 and 14 and paragraph 47 of Storrusten, in the Final Action. Final Act. 11. We find no persuasive support for the Examiner’s finding in Figures 13 and 14 and paragraph 47. We further agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not make specific findings regarding the relative placement and the specific direction perpendicular to the scrolling axis. Although the Examiner makes a finding of the two additional text items 246 and 248 in Figure 16 of Storrusten, the items are not displayed in a direction opposite of the first direction perpendicular to the scrolling axis. Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 11 As a result, in addition to the rationale set forth with respect to independent claim 1, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 42 for these additional reasons. Dependent claims 3, 19, and 33 With respect to dependent claims 3, 19, and 33, we select dependent claim 3 as the illustrative claim and address Appellant’s arguments thereto. We find that dependent claims 19 and 33 contain commensurate limitations. The Examiner finds that Storrusten teaches “respective content unit of the first set of content units corresponds to respective metadata; and moving the first set of content units perpendicular to the first scrolling axis includes revealing the respective metadata at a location that was previously occupied by the respective content unit (figs 15, 16 and para 0048).” Final Act. 9. Appellant contends that in the Examiner’s findings in the Final Action (1) the content units in these cited figures and paragraph are not moved perpendicularly to the first scrolling axis, and (2) the metadata is not displayed at a location that was previously occupied by the respective content unit. Appeal Br. 21–22; see generally Reply Br. 14–16. The Examiner sets forth a similar discussion as set forth with respect to dependent claim 42 relying upon Figures 13–16 and paragraphs 0047 and 0048 of Storrusten, but the Examiner makes no specific finding regarding the “moving the first set of content units perpendicular to the first scrolling axis includes revealing the respective metadata at a location that was previously occupied by the respective content unit.” Ans. 7–8. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not made persuasive findings regarding the specific location of the metadata with respect to the movement of the content units. As a result, we additionally find error in the Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 12 Examiner’s specific rejection of dependent claim 3 and dependent claims 19 and 33. Dependent claims 4–6, 10, 13–15, 20–22, 26, 29–31, 34–36, 38, and 39–41 With respect to the additional dependent claims, the Examiner has not identified how the additional prior art references remedy the noted deficiency discussed above with respect to illustrative independent claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection contains the same noted deficiency, and we cannot sustain the additional rejections for the same reasons. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–7, 10, 13–23, 26, and 29–42. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 7, 16– 19, 23, 32, 33, 37, 42 103 Storrusten, Kocienda 1–3, 7, 16– 19, 23, 32, 33, 37, 42 4–6, 10, 20- 22, 26, 34– 36, 38 103 Storrusten, Kocienda, Anzures 4–6, 10, 20- 22, 26, 34– 36, 38 13, 29, 39 103 Storrusten, Kocienda, Hull 13, 29, 39 14, 15, 30, 31, 40, 41 103 Storrusten, Kocienda, Platzer 14, 15, 30, 31, 40, 41 Overall Outcome 1–7, 10, 13– 23, 26, 29– 42 Appeal 2020-003643 Application 14/290,850 13 REVERSED