Ex Parte Andres et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 2016

13603178 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/603, 178 09/04/2012 98449 7590 03/23/2016 Shumaker & Sieffert, P,A, 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 300 Woodbury, MN 55125 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Isaac Andres 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. l 133-382US01 4757 EXAMINER HORNER, JONATHAN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2694 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2016 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): pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ISAAC ANDRES and JEREMY WALKER Appeal2014-005952 Application 13/603,178 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-005952 Application 13/603,178 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 9-21, and 23-32. Claims 7-8 and 22 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The application is directed to "techniques for controlling video content on a computing device, such as a mobile computing device." (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: outputting, by a computing device and for display, video con- tent; receiving, during display of the video content, an indication of a gesture input that has motion with respect to a presence- sensitive input device operatively coupled to the computing device; determining, by the computing device, a speed of the motion of the gesture input; rewinding or fast forwarding, by the computing device, the video content in a direction corresponding to the motion of the gesture input, the rewinding or fast forwarding being at a speed based at least in part on the determined speed of the motion of the gesture input; and outputting, by the computing device and for display during the rewinding or fast forwarding of the video content, a virtual frame reel, the virtual frame reel comprising a plurality of frames 1 Appellants identify Google, Inc. as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 3.) 2 Appeal2014-005952 Application 13/603,178 of the video content displayed in lateral motion and in a direction corresponding to the rewinding or fast forwarding. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Harradine et al. US 6,342,902 Bl Jan. 29, 2002 Amir et al. US 6,760,536 Bl July 6, 2004 Viljamaa US 2011/0161818 Al June 30, 2011 Rainisto US 2012/0054670 Al Mar. 1, 2012 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-2, 4--6, 9-13, 15-20, and 31-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Viljamaa, Rainisto, and Harradine. (Final Act. 3-15.) 2. Claims 3, 14, 21, and 23-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Viljamaa, Rainisto, Harradine, and Amir. (Final Act. 12-21.) APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS Appellants argue that the rejections are improper because "the applied references fail to disclose or suggest the feature of 'determining, by the computing device, a speed of the motion of the gesture input,' and 'rewinding or fast forwarding, by the computing device, the video content in a direction corresponding to the motion of the gesture input, the rewinding or fast forwarding being at a speed based at least in part on the determined speed of the motion of the gesture input," as recited in independent claim 1. 3 Appeal2014-005952 Application 13/603,178 (App. Br. 9.) Appellants also argue similar limitations from claim 23, the only other independent claim. (Id. at 14.) ANALYSIS "determining ... a speed of the motion of the gesture input" and "rewinding or fast forwarding ... the video content in a direction corresponding to the motion of the gesture input, the rewinding or fast forwarding being at a speed based at least in part on the determined speed of the motion of the gesture input" Regarding these limitations, the Examiner points to Viljamaa, Rainisto, and Harradine. First, the Examiner finds that Viljamaa teaches, in paragraphs 34 and 42, "rewinding or fast forwarding ... the video content in a direction corresponding to the motion of the gesture input" where "the rewinding or fast forwarding [is] based in part on the motion of the gesture input." (Ans. 2-3.) Because "Viljamaa fails to teach determining ... a speed of the motion of the gesture input," the Examiner looks to Rainisto, which is said to teach that technique in paragraphs 15-16. (Id. at 3.) Finally, because "Viljamaa as modified by [Rainisto] fails to teach rewinding or fast forwarding being at a speed based at least in part [on] the determined motion," the Examiner looks to Harradine, at column 9, lines 30-50. (Id.) The cited portions of Viljamaa describe a display in which a central thumbnail shows an active video and thumbnails on either side of the central thumbnail show static images representing preceding and subsequent chapters of the video. (See Viljamaa i-f 32-33.) A user may select or jump to a new chapter by touching the desired thumbnail. (See id. i-f 34.) Viljamaa also describes how the series of thumbnails is like a "film strip 244 [that] is pannable, meaning that it can be scrolled left and right," and that "[f]or 4 Appeal2014-005952 Application 13/603,178 example, the user can pan the film strip left and right using left and right stroke gestures, respectively." (Id. i-f 42.) Cited paragraph 15 of Rainisto describes how a display may be scrolled in response to "a flicking input by a finger or a stylus" and that "[i]n some cases a user may need to scroll through a very long page, which may require even 10 to 20 flicking inputs to reach the end of the page" due to "a friction component [that] is usually present in flick scrolling designs." (Rainisto i-f 15.) In paragraph 16, Rainisto suggests controlling scrolling by the use of "hovering," such that, for example, scrolling initiated by a flicking input would continue as long as a finger is held over the screen, thus reducing the need for multiple flicks. (See id. i-f 16.) The cited portion of Harradine describes a method for shuttle control in which the shuttle speed is dependent on the horizontal distance the cursor has moved with the button held down. (See Harradine 9:36-50.) Having reviewed the references, we conclude that the Examiner has not established that the claimed combination would have been obvious, as the combination does not teach or suggest "determining ... a speed of the motion of the gesture input," or "the rewinding or fast forwarding being at a speed based at least in part on the determined speed of the motion of the gesture input." In particular, neither Rainisto nor Harradine teach or suggest "determining ... a speed of the motion of the gesture input." Rainisto describes how scrolling can be initiated with a flicking gesture, but says nothing about determining the speed of the gesture, and Harradine varies the shuttle control by displacement, not speed. While the Examiner finds that Rainisto "teaches that the scrolling parameters detected from the touch input 5 Appeal2014-005952 Application 13/603,178 include 'speed of scrolling,'" the claim is concerned not with the speed of scrolling but, instead, with "the speed of the gesture input." For this reason, we decline to sustain the Â§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1---6, 9-21, and 23-32. DECISION The rejections of claims 1---6, 9-21, and 23-32 are reversed. REVERSED 6