Ex Parte Nurmi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

11019862 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111019,862 12/22/2004 Mikko A. Nurmi
100809 7590 08/02/2016
Core Wireless Licensing Ltd
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 1300
Plano, TX 75024
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.
CW.2626.USUl 1977
EXAMINER
FIBBI, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
ipadmin-core@core-wireless.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKKO A. NURMI
Appeal2015-002773
Application 11/019,862
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-002773
Application 11/019,862
Exemplary Claims
1. A method comprising:
displaying a first position indicator in a scroll region on a display,
corresponding to a first position of a first subset of graphical
information;
scrolling to a second subset of the graphical information in
response to a signal;
displaying, within the scroll region, the first position indicator
and a second position indicator associated with the second subset
of graphical information; and
displaying, in response to the signal, a visual representation
linking the first position indicator to the second position
indicator, the visual representation indicating to a user that when
the signal ends the first subset of graphical information will again
be displayed.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the visual
representation comprises a resilient spring between the first and
second position indicators.
Rejections
Claims 1 and 3-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martinez et al. (US 6,147,683; Nov. 14, 2000), Ullmann et
al. (US 6,677,965 Bl; Jan. 13, 2004), and Fukui et al. (US 6,940,532 Bl;
Sept. 6, 2005). Final Act. (Feb. 13, 2014) 2-10.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martinez, Ullmann, Fukui, and Torres et al.
(US 5,550,969; Aug. 27, 1996). Final Act. 10.
2
Appeal2015-002773
Application 11/019,862
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Martinez,
Ullmann, and Fukui teaches or suggests "displaying, in response to the
signal, a visual representation linking the first position indicator to the
second position indicator, the visual representation indicating to a user that
when the signal ends the first subset of graphical information will again be
displayed," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Martinez,
Ullmann, and Fukui teaches or suggests "the visual representation comprises
a resilient spring," as recited in claim 3?
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, AND 23-25
In the Examiner's rejection, claim 1 's first and second position
indicators are respectively read on Martinez's marker 129B of a selection
within a drop down menu and scroll box 340 for scrolling within the menu.
Final Act. 3; see also Martinez col. 6, 11. 43-67 (describing Figs. 5-6). The
marker 129B is placed within the menu's scroll bar. Martinez col. 6, 11.
63-67. Thus, even ifthe user scrolls away from the selection, such that the
selection itself is no longer visible, the marker 129B remains visible and
continues to indicate the selection's position. Id.
Claim 1 's visual link ("visual representation ... ") is read on
Ullmann's rubber band 42 as implemented by the Martinez-Ullmann-Fukui
combination. Final Act. 3; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3. The rubber band 42 pulls a
fixed button 51 to thereby scroll the corresponding display. Ullmann col. 5,
1. 43-col. 6, 1. 22. The rubber band 42 is in tum pulled by a pointer 201,
thereby stretching between the button 51 and pointer 201. Id. at col. 5, 11.
3
Appeal2015-002773
Application 11/019,862
43-58. iviovement of the pointer 201 causes the rubber band 42 to pull
harder or softer on the button 51 (stretches further or less) and thereby
respectively accelerate or decelerate scrolling. Id. The Martinez-Ullmann-
Fukui combination stretches the rubber band 42 between Martinez's fixed
marker 129B and sliding scroll box 340 to reduce the scroll bar length; just
as Ullmann stretches the rubber band 42 between the fixed button 51 and
moving pointer 201 for the same purpose. Final Act. 3 (citing Ullmann col.
8, 11. 33-40); Ans. 3.
Claim l's scroll return ("when the [scroll] signal ends the first subset
of graphical information will again be displayed") is read on Fukui' s scroll
return as implemented by the Martinez-Ullmann-Fukui combination. Final
Act. 4; Ans. 3. Fukui discloses a marker 2 of a cursor's position within a
document. Fukui col. 4, 11. 4 7-59; col. 5, 11. 52-62; Figs. 5, 7. If a user
scrolls away from the marked position, such that the cursor is no longer
visible, the displayed image returns to the document region of the cursor
when the user stops the scrolling. Id. The Martinez-Ullmann-Fukui
combination adds Fukui' s scroll return such that Martinez's menu returns to
the region of the marker 129C when the user stops scrolling. Final Act. 4;
Ans. 3 ("adding Fukui's return to mark ... provides automatic return ... to
an original position").
Appellant contends Ullmann's button 51 and pointer 201 are not
position indicators, 1 and that therefore it would not have been obvious to
1 By "position indicator," we mean directly indicating a position of graphical
information within a menu, document, etc. We make no determination of
whether claim l's expansive description of the first and second position
indicators-"corresponding to ... a first subset of graphical information"
4
Appeal2015-002773
Application 11/019,862
stretch Ulhnann's rubber band 42 between iviartinez's marker 129C and
scroll box 340 because Ullmann's cited embodiment uses the rubber band 42
to pull a fixed button 51 and thereby implement a variable scroll rate; not to
link position indicators of graphical information, as is claimed. App.
Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner responds that a skilled artisan
would recognize Ullmann' s cited embodiment as drawing the rubber band
42 "from a fixed position while a movement input is being provided at a
second location which is associated with information in the display area."
Ans. 3.
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of error because it attacks
Ullmann individually rather than show error in the Examiner's reliance on
the combined teachings and suggestions of Martinez, Ullmann, and Fukui.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). In the Martinez-
Ullmann-Fukui combination, Ullmann's rubber band 42 links Martinez's
marker 129C and scroll box 340. See supra (description of combination).
Thus, the Examiner relies on Martinez, rather than Ullmann, to teach or
suggest claim 1 's position indicators of graphical information. The
Examiner relies on Ullmann' s button 51 and pointer 201 as sufficiently
analogous to Martinez's marker 129C and scroll box 340, respectively, to
suggest stretching the rubber band 42 between the marker 129C and scroll
box 340.
Appellant does not persuasively identify error in the Examiner's
proffered reason why it would have been obvious to combine Martinez's and
Ullmann's teachings. We find the above-noted components of Martinez and
and "associated with the second subset of graphical information" (emphasis
added}---carries the same meaning.
5
Appeal2015-002773
Application 11/019,862
Ullmann are indeed sufficiently analogous to establish it would have been
obvious to combine Martinez's and Ullmann's teachings-here, the
combination is a predictable variation of the use of prior art elements
according to their established functions. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). An artisan would have understood the rubber
band 42 as visualizing an exertion of force on a scroll bar component for
purposes of scrolling. The artisan would have in tum contemplated
stretching the rubber band 42 between any fixed scroll bar component
(button 51; marker 129B) and movable scrolling component (pointer 201;
scroll box 340) to visualize an exertion of force on a scroll bar component
for purposes of showing the effect of ceasing scrolling.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Martinez, Ullmann, and Fukui teaches or suggests "displaying, in response
to the signal, a visual representation linking the first position indicator to the
second position indicator, the visual representation indicating to a user that
when the signal ends the first subset of graphical information will again be
displayed," as recited in claim 1
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 4-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23-25, which Appellant does not argue
separately with persuasive specificity. With respect to claim 2, Appellant
merely contends Torres does not cure the purported deficiencies of the
Martinez-Ullmann-Fukui combination, addressed above with respect to
claim 1. As the Examiner's reliance on Martinez, Ullmann, and Fukui is not
deficient, Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of error. Therefore, we also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2.
6
Appeal2015-002773
Application 11/019,862
CLAHvIS 3, 13, 16, 18, 20, AND 22
Dependent claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Martinez, Ullmann, and
Fukui and further restricts the respective base claim's "visual representation"
to being a "resilient spring."
Appellant argues: "[Ullmann's] virtual rubber band is not a visual
representation comprising a resilient spring. A rubber band is manufactured
from elastomeric materials while a spring is composed of crystalline
structures." App. Br. 11.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's finding that, for the claimed
invention's purpose of displaying a stretch resiliency, Ullmann's virtual
rubber band would be understood as teaching or suggesting a virtual spring
(i.e., a resilient spring). Ans. 4-5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3, and
claims 13, 16, 18, 20, and 22, which Appellant does not argue separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25.
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
7