Ex Parte Hauser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 2018

13689598 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/689,598 11129/2012 Jasper Reid Hauser 91230 7590 05/21/2018 Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc. 2001 ROSS A VENUE SUITE 900 Dallas, TX 75201 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. 079894.0828 3727 EXAMINER SHREWSBURY, NATHAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/21/2018 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): ptomaill@bakerbotts.com ptomail2@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASPER REID HAUSER, JASLEEN SINGH, JONATHAN M. KALDOR, WILLIAMS. BAILEY, and VLADIMIR KOLESNIKOV Appeal 2017-010391 1 Application 13/689,598 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of all pending claims, 1-20. See App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Face book, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-010391 Application 13/689,598 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to scrolling within a structured document, such as a web page, using touch-based input devices. See Spec. i-fi-125-26. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method comprising: by a computing device, receiving a first user input to scroll within a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a touch screen of the computing device, the first user input comprising a touch gesture on the touch screen, the touch gesture comprising a path that comprises a starting point and one or more other points on the touch screen; by the computing device, determining a plurality of regions of the touch screen defined with respect to the starting point, a first one of the regions corresponding to a first scrolling axis, a second one of the regions corresponding to a second scrolling axis that is perpendicular to the first scrolling axis; by the computing device, determining that the path corresponds to the first one of the regions; by the computing device, based on the determining that the path corresponds to the first one of the regions, scrolling within the GUI according to the first user input linearly and parallel to the first scrolling axis; by the computing device, receiving a second user input to scroll within the GUI; by the computing device, determining that the second user input occurred within a predetermined amount of time from the first user input; and by the computing device, based on the determining that the second user input occurred within the pre-determined amount of time, scrolling within the GUI linearly and parallel to the first scrolling axis according to a component of the second user input along the first scrolling axis. 2 Appeal2017-010391 Application 13/689,598 References and Rejections The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Hildreth Akifusa Asakura US 2009/0315740 Al US 2012/0072863 Al US 2013/0106744 Al Dec. 24, 2009 Mar. 22, 2012 May 2, 2013 Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Asakura. Final Act. 2. Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, and 18 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asakura and Hildreth. Final Act. 7. Claims 7, 14, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asakura and Akifusa. Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 requires scrolling a display linearly and parallel to the axis of a first user input scroll, based on determining a second user input occurs "within a pre-determined amount of time from the first user input." The Examiner finds Asakura's description of a user gesture comprising multiple touch points occurring over multiple sampling periods discloses these limitations: "the description in Asakura [O 11 OJ where sampling periods are taught could indeed be viewed to create multiple inputs between those points." Final Act. 10. Appellants argue the Examiner errs because "Asakura discloses a predetermined threshold distance which is wholly different from the pre- determined amount of time recited in Claim 1." App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue the "sampling rate or sampling period disclosed in Asakura 3 Appeal2017-010391 Application 13/689,598 refers to a time interval at which a touch-panel controller periodically samples capacitance values from a touch screen to determine the position of a touch point," which is "different from the pre-determined amount of time recited in Claim 1, where a scrolling operation occurs if the second user input occurred within the pre-determined amount of time from the first user input." App. Br. 10. We find the Examiner's rejection is in error. The Examiner maps the touch points of Asakura to the recited first and second user inputs, and Asakura discloses that "[ t ]he touch points Pe21 and Pe22 are located within the insensitive area 240," which can be defined by the threshold value "time limit." Asakura i-fi-f 100, 110; Final Act. 4. Within the insensitive area, however, "scroll is locked in both directions," and scrolling does not start until touch point Pe23 is reached outside of the insensitive area. Asakura f 100; see also Asakura Fig. 6, i161. That is, Asakura's time limit is used to determine the start of scrolling (i.e., a first scrolling) once an input is outside of the threshold. In contrast, the recited "predetermined amount of time" is used to determine a second scrolling for an input within the threshold. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that Asakura does not disclose "a scrolling operation occurs ifthe second user input occurred within the pre- determined amount of time from the first user input." App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). As Asakura does not disclose each and every limitation of claim 1, we are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 for similar reasons. 4 Appeal2017-010391 Application 13/689,598 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED 5