Ex Parte LIRA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2017

13731364 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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.
13/731,364 12/31/2012 LUIGI LIRA 19487.193.1.1.9 6211
107193 7590 03/20/2017
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
EXAMINER
CHU, DAVID H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2017 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gj olley @ kj pip. com
tkusitor@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUIGI LIRA1
Appeal 2017-000930
Application 13/731,364
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 13, 14, 17—27, 30-38, and 41—48.2 This appeal is related
to an appeal (2015-002217, decided August 17, 2016) for co-pending
application 12/963,444 and an appeal (2015-001776, decided August 17,
2016) for co-pending application 13/731,382. Appeal Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. See
Appeal Brief 2.
2 Claims 1—12, 15, 16, 28, 29, 39, and 40 are cancelled. Final Act. 1.
Appeal 2017-000930
Application 13/731,364
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to changing a
position of a visible portion of a page of information on a display if an input
motion exceeds a threshold. Alternatively, the position of the visible portion
of the page of information on the display is constrained if the motion does
not exceed the threshold. Spec. 1—2.3 Claims 13, 26, and 38 are
independent. Claim 13 is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations in italics:
13. A method comprising:
displaying, on a touchscreen display, a first view of content;
detecting a motion of an object on or near the touchscreen
display, wherein detecting the motion comprises detecting a
vertical component of the motion and detecting a horizontal
component of the motion;
repositioning, during the detected motion, a viewable portion of
the content from the first view towards a second view of the
content;
determining whether the horizontal component meets a
predetermined horizontal threshold;
in response to a determination that the horizontal component
does not meet the predetermined horizontal threshold, preventing
horizontal movement of the viewable portion as the viewable
portion is repositioned from the first view towards the second
view; and
3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the following documents: (1)
Appellant’s Specification filed December 31, 2012 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed October 9, 2014; (3) the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”) filed July 9, 2015, and amended Brief filed January 22, 2016;
(4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 11, 2016; and (5) the
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed October 11, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-000930
Application 13/731,364
in response to a determination that the horizontal component
does meet the predetermined horizontal threshold, permitting
two-dimensional movement of the viewable portion as the
viewable portion is repositioned from the first view towards the
second view according to the vertical component and the
horizontal component of the detected motion.
Appeal Br. 3 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal includes:
Montagna et al. US 4
(“Montagna”)
Eng et al. (“Eng”) US 5
Brewer et al. (“Brewer”) US 5
Naughton et al. US 5
(“Naughton”)
,899,292 Feb. 6, 1990
,638,092 June 10, 1997
,880,722 Mar. 9, 1999
,886,697 Mar. 23, 1999
REJECTIONS
Claims 13, 14, 17—20, 22—27, 30-38, 41, and 43—48 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Naughton,
Eng, and Brewer. Final Act. 2—7.
Claims 21 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Naughton, Eng, Brewer, and
Montagna. Final Act. 8.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellant. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellant and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
3
Appeal 2017-000930
Application 13/731,364
ISSUES
1. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Naughton,
Eng, and Brewer teaches or suggests “detecting a vertical component of the
motion,” as recited in claim 13?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Naughton,
Eng, and Brewer teaches or suggests “determining whether the horizontal
component meets a predetermined horizontal threshold,” as recited in claim
13?
3. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Naughton,
Eng, and Brewer is proper because Brewer is analogous art?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions and we adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—7) and (2) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—3). We concur with the findings and conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for emphasis.
Issue 1
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Naughton teaches or
suggests “detecting a vertical component of the motion,” as recited in claim
13 because “nowhere does Naughton disclose an example of navigational
panning in the vertical dimension.” Appeal Br. 10.
4
Appeal 2017-000930
Application 13/731,364
We find this argument unpersuasive because we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Naughton suggests panning in both a horizontal and
vertical direction. Ans. 2. Naughton discloses tracking user input in two-
dimensions. Naughton 15:51—54. The user input may be provided by a
user’s finger touching a touch screen display 37 or by mouse, trackball, or
joystick. Naughton 15:56. Naugton further discloses a user panning though
a space by “placing a finger on the background image of a space displayed
on the touch display screen 37 and sliding the finger in the desired direction
of movement.” Naughton 16:46-48 (emphasis added). Panning in computer
graphics is “a display method in which a viewing window on the screen
scans horizontally or vertically, like a camera, to bring offscreen extensions
of the current image smoothly into view.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary
389 (5th ed. 2002). Panning, therefore, suggests either vertical movement or
horizontal movement, so long as the movement brings offscreen extensions
of the current image smoothly into view. Although Naughton provides an
example of horizontal panning, Naughton does not limit the panning to
horizontal panning. Naughton 16:56—64. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that by discussing movement of the user input device in
vertical and horizontal directions in conjunction with the description of
panning (Ans. 2—3), Naugthon suggests detecting a vertical component of
the motion of the user’s finger near touch screen display 37.
Issue 2
The Examiner relies on Eng to teach or suggest “determining whether
the horizontal component meets a predetermined horizontal threshold.”
Final Act. 3; Ans. 3 (citing Eng 15:13—16, 15:19-45). Specifically, the
5
Appeal 2017-000930
Application 13/731,364
Examiner finds Eng’s disclosure of “[mjoving the cursor off the left-right or
up-down axis when a finger movement that is ‘slightly larger’ has been
detected” teaches or suggests the claimed predetermined horizontal
threshold. Final Act. 3.
In response, Appellant argues Eng’s discussion of a “‘slightly larger’
movement refers to the fact that, because the gains of the movements in the
nonpredicted direction are penalized, larger movements in the non-predicted
direction are necessary to achieve the same net effect as movements in the
predicted direction” and so Eng fails to teach or suggest “a predetermined
horizontal threshold,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 12.
We find this argument unpersuasive. In describing motion prediction
for ensuring movement of a cursor in straight lines, Eng states,
[t]he net effect is a detectable smoothing bias towards either
left-right or up-down movement. This smoothing bias enables
the user to easily move cursor 111 in straight lines along either
left-right axis 121 or up-down axis 122 on screen 112.
Once movement along left-right axis 121 or up-down
axis 122 is detected, motion in directions other than along the
predicted direction is penalized. As a result, slightly larger
finger movement along a non-predicted direction is required to
change the direction of cursor movement from the predicted
direction.
Eng 15:6-15.
As described above, once movement in a vertical direction is detected
in Eng, movement in a horizontal direction is penalized by requiring slightly
larger finger movement along the horizontal direction to change the
direction of cursor movement in the horizontal direction. That is, Eng
suggests that when the horizontal finger movement exceeds a threshold (by
being slightly larger than some predetermined finger movement), horizontal
6
Appeal 2017-000930
Application 13/731,364
movement of the cursor is allowed. Eng 15:6—15. We, therefore, find
Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Eng’s requiring a slightly larger horizontal finger movement
when moving the cursor along the up-down axis suggests “determining
whether the horizontal component meets a predetermined horizontal
threshold,” as recited in claim 13. Ans. 3—A.
Issue 3
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Naughton, Eng, and Brewer
because Brewer is non-analogous art. Appeal Br. 13. Specifically,
Appellant argues Brewer is not reasonably pertinent to the problem with
which Appellant was involved because Brewer “does not relate to the
content navigation of the claims.” Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5.
To qualify as prior art a reference must “qualify as ‘analogous art’ by
satisfying one of the following conditions: (1) the reference must be from
the same field of endeavor; or (2) the reference must be reasonably pertinent
to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” K—TEC, Inc.
v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The Examiner finds that Brewer is in the same field of endeavor.
Final Act. 4. Appellant, however, merely argues “the disclosure of Brewer
does not relate to the content navigation of the claims” (Appeal Br. 13), i.e.,
Brewer allegedly is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which Appellant is involved and, therefore, fails the second condition to
qualify as analogous art. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because
Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s finding that Brewer is within the
7
Appeal 2017-000930
Application 13/731,364
same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ans. 4. Moreover, despite
Appellant’s contentions, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Brewer
is also reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor
is involved because Brewer also relates to solving the problem of
“calculating the user’s intended movement of a cursor.” Ans. 4; see also
Brewer 5:55—60. Accordingly, because we agree with the Examiner that
Brewer satisfies at least one of the first analogous art condition (with
unrebutted findings) and the second analogous art condition (with
unpersuasive arguments), we are not persuaded Brewer is non-analogous art
or that the Examiner improperly combined Naughton, Eng, and Brewer.
We sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 13.
We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 26
and 38, which are argued with independent claim 13, for similar reasons.
Appeal Br. 12—18. Dependent claims 14, 17—20, 22—25, 27, 30-37, 41, and
43—48, are either nominally argued separately, or are not argued separately,
and fall with their respective independent claims. Appeal Br. 7—11.
Claims 21 and 42
In arguing claims 21 and 42, Appellant repeats the substance of the
arguments made for claim 13. Appeal Br. 14. As discussed above we find
these arguments to be unpersuasive. Appellant contends Montagna fails to
remedy the deficiencies of the other prior art references. We find this
contention unpersuasive of error because Appellant does not identify error in
the rejection of claim 13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims
21 and 42.
8
Appeal 2017-000930
Application 13/731,364
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13, 14, 17—27,
30-38, and 41^18 under 35 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).
AFFIRMED
9