Ex Parte Paasonen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2016

11135624 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

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.
11/135,624 05/23/2005 Juho Paasonen 042933/407155 2963
10949 7590 12/01/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2016 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUHO PAASONEN, HENRI MELAANVUO,
ROOPE RAINISTO, PETRI TOLPPANEN,
HANNU PIRSKANEN, KALLE SAARINEN,
MATTI VAISANEN, VIRPI ROTO, PANU JOHANSSON,
EERO TAMMINEN, SIMO SADE, and JUSSI-PEKKA KEKKI
Appeal 2015-007813
Application 11/135,624
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-007813
Application 11/135,624
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 35—38, 46-49, and 58—66, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a “pocket computer . . .
having an apparatus housing and a user interface with a touch-sensitive
display” (Abstract).
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1,35, and 46, reproduced below, are
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of operating a user interface of a pocket
computer, the method comprising:
providing, on a display of said pocket computer, a plurality
of use-aspect interface elements, wherein each of the plurality of
use-aspect interface elements represents a general functionality
of the pocket computer, wherein each use-aspect interface
element is associated with a plurality of task-oriented-option
elements associated with multiple different software
applications, each task-oriented-option element being associated
with a specific function of a specific said software application;
in response to detecting a selection of a particular use-
aspect interface element, presenting on said display the plurality
of associated task oriented option elements; and
in response to detecting a selection by said user of a
particular task-oriented-option element, invoking the specific
function of the specific application associated with the particular
task-oriented-option element.
2
Appeal 2015-007813
Application 11/135,624
35. A method to temporarily hide a window, comprising a
head area, displayed in a location on a touch sensitive display of
a pocket computer, said method comprising:
detecting a stationary tap of a pointing tool in a position
corresponding to said head area of said window;
hiding contents of said window during a period when the
detected stationary tap indicates that the pointing tool is pressed
down, thereby exposing any content previously covered by said
window,
detecting a lift of said pointing tool, and
in response to detecting the lift of the pointing tool, re­
drawing the content of said window in said location.
46. A method for scrolling content in a window displayed on
a touch sensitive display of a pocket computer, comprising:
enabling displaying of a scrollbar comprising a scroll
thumb movable in a trough on said display,
enabling detecting of a stationary tap of a pointing tool in
a stationary tapping position in said trough,
enabling scrolling of said content during a period when
said pointing tool is detected to be pressed down in the stationary
tapping position, such that during said scrolling:
the position of said scroll thumb is updated in said
trough accordingly by moving said scroll thumb in said trough;
and
scrolling is allowed to continue, during the detected
stationary tap, such that said position of said scroll thumb moves
past said stationary tapping position in said trough, enabling
detecting of a lift of said pointing tool, and once lift of said
pointing tool is detected, enabling stopping said scrolling of
content.
3
Appeal 2015-007813
Application 11/135,624
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 60, and 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Cadiz (US 2002/0186257 Al; Dec. 12, 2002). Final
Act. 2}
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 35—38, 46-49, and 58—65 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hotelling (US 2006/0026535 Al;
Feb. 2, 2006). Final Act. 6.
ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that:
1. Cadiz discloses “each use-aspect interface element is associated with
a plurality of task-oriented-option elements associated with multiple
different software applications,” as recited in claim 1;
2. Hotelling discloses “each use-aspect interface element is associated
with a plurality of task-oriented-option elements associated with
multiple different software applications,” as recited in claim 1;
3. Hotelling discloses “hiding contents of said window during a period
when the detected stationary tap indicates that the pointing tool is
pressed down, thereby exposing any content previously covered by
said window,” as recited in claim 35; and
4. Hotelling discloses:
enabling scrolling of said content during a period when
said pointing tool is detected to be pressed down in the stationary
tapping position, such that during said scrolling:
1 The Final Action incorrectly refers to claims 1, 2—6, 60, and 61 as
anticipated by Cadiz, although claim 3 has been canceled (see App. Br. 15);
we consider this error harmless.
4
Appeal 2015-007813
Application 11/135,624
the position of said scroll thumb is updated in said
trough accordingly by moving said scroll thumb in said trough;
and
scrolling is allowed to continue, during the detected
stationary tap, such that said position of said scroll thumb moves
past said stationary tapping position in said trough,
as recited in claim 46.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 60, and 61
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that Cadiz anticipates
the limitation of “each use-aspect interface element is associated with a
plurality of task-oriented-option elements associated with multiple different
software applications,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9-10). Appellants
contend that “there does not appear to be a hierarchy wherein one can access
groups of ‘task oriented options user interface elements'1 associated with a
function of different applications by selecting a more general ‘ use-aspect
interface element’ from multiple use-aspect interface elements” (App. Br.
10).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Cadiz teaches “the user is able to activate one of many tickets
(tickets function as interactive icons) wherein each ticket describes functions
of interactive actions” (Answer 5, citing || 200-204). Cadiz further teaches
“person items 810, 815, and 820” which when selected, open an “enhanced
tooltip” window that provides “availability via any of five individual
communications channels 840” (Cadiz 1201; see also Figs. 8A— 8B). Here,
the person items are tantamount to the claimed “use-aspect interface
5
Appeal 2015-007813
Application 11/135,624
element” and the availability via communications channels are tantamount to
the claimed “task-oriented option element.” Appellants’ arguments are not
persuasive as they paraphrase the claim language but are not commensurate
in scope with the claims.2
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding that Hotelling
anticipates the limitation of “each use-aspect interface element is associated
with a plurality of task-oriented-option elements associated with multiple
different software applications,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 10-11).
Appellants reiterate their argument made with respect to Cadiz, now applied
to Hotelling (see App. Br. 10), and further contend that “Hotelling teaches a
single level selection process” (App. Br. 11).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Hotelling teaches the “multiple applications either running on
the device or being stored on the device” (Ans. 4, citing Hotelling 1145) in
which a GUI displays an image that:
may include windows, fields, dialog boxes, menus, icons,
buttons, cursors, scroll bars, etc. In some cases, the user can
select and activate the image (or features embedded therein) in
order to initiate functions and tasks. . . . The image may also be
one or more icons that launch a particular program of files that
open when selected.
(Ans. 4, quoting Hotelling 1118). Here, the functions are mapped to the
claimed “use-aspect interface element” and the tasks are mapped to the
claimed “task-oriented option element.” Appellants’ arguments regarding
2 Appellants’ arguments also refer to a “hierarchy” among the elements (see
App. Br. 10 and Reply Br. 2—4), which is not commensurate in scope of the
claims; further, there is no showing that the figures appearing in the Reply
(see Reply Br. 3) regarding the hierarchy have support in Appellants’
Specification.
6
Appeal 2015-007813
Application 11/135,624
Hotelling are also unpersuasive for the reasons described above with respect
to Cadiz.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejections of
independent claim 1 under each of Cadiz and Hotelling, as well as
independent claims 60 and 61, and dependent claims 2, 4—6, and 66 not
separately argued.
Claims 35, 62, and 63
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that Hotelling
anticipates the limitation of “hiding contents of said window during a period
when the detected stationary tap indicates that the pointing tool is pressed
down, thereby exposing any content previously covered by said window,” as
recited in claim 35 (App. Br. 11—12). Appellants contend that Hotelling’s
“floating controls in a GUI” generate an image that “is configured to obscure
the underlying graphics whilst the user is interacting with the screen” (App.
Br. 11—12, citing Hotelling 1118) in contrast to claim 35, which exposes
“‘any content previously covered by said window during a period when the
detected stationary tap indicates that the pointing tool is pressed down’”
(App. Br. 12).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Hotelling discloses the “interaction between the interface and
the user allows for hiding of content for the purpose of fmding/viewing other
content on a limited display screen” (Ans. 8, citing Hotelling | 67 and Fig.
17C). As illustrated in Figure 17C and described in paragraph 120 (cited at
Final Act. 8), upon thumb activation on touch screen 520, control box 522 is
displayed, in which one of buttons 524 is pressed to minimize contents of
7
Appeal 2015-007813
Application 11/135,624
screen 520, because buttons 524 are “one or more buttons that open, close,
minimize, or maximize a window”; see Hotelling 1118 describing Figs.
17A-E.
The resulting image (which is the image previously covered by the
contents of screen 520) “is displayed as long as the object is detected,”
(Hotelling 1118), and upon removal of the thumb (or object), the object is
no longer detected, and the contents of screen 520 are redisplayed. Thus, we
find Hotelling discloses “hiding content” within the meaning of the claim. .
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 35 under Hotelling, as well as independent claims 62 and
63, and dependent claims 36—38 and 58 not separately argued.
Claims 46, 64, and 65
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that Hotelling
anticipates the limitations of
enabling scrolling of said content during a period when
said pointing tool is detected to be pressed down in the stationary
tapping position, such that during said scrolling:
the position of said scroll thumb is updated in said
trough accordingly by moving said scroll thumb in said trough;
and
scrolling is allowed to continue, during the detected
stationary tap, such that said position of said scroll thumb moves
past said stationary tapping position in said trough,
as recited in claim 46 (App. Br. 12—13). Appellants contend that unlike
Hotelling, claim 46 relates “to allowing a user to scroll by providing a
stationary input to a scroll trough such that the scroll thumb moves towards
and then beyond the stationary position” (App. Br. 12). The Examiner finds
8
Appeal 2015-007813
Application 11/135,624
Hotelling teaches the scrollbar “comprising a scroll thumb moveable in a
trough” (Final Act. 9, citing the steps of Hotelling 1120). We do not agree
with this finding because the cited portion of Hotelling teaches “a floating
control sequence” unrelated to scrolling, and Figures 17A—E described in the
cited portion of Hotelling do not depict a scroll thumb moveable in a trough.
We also agree with Appellants that Hotelling’s scroll wheel does not contain
a “scroll thumb,” as claimed. See Reply Br. 8; Hotelling Figs. 36A—38J.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 46, as well as independent claims 64 and 65
commensurate in scope, and dependent claims 47-49 and 59.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that:
1. Cadiz discloses or suggests “each use-aspect interface element is
associated with a plurality of task-oriented-option elements associated
with multiple different software applications,” as recited in claim 1;
2. Hotelling discloses or suggests “each use-aspect interface element is
associated with a plurality of task-oriented-option elements associated
with multiple different software applications,” as recited in claim 1;
and
3. Hotelling discloses or suggests “hiding contents of said window
during a period when the detected stationary tap indicates that the
9
Appeal 2015-007813
Application 11/135,624
pointing tool is pressed down, thereby exposing any content
previously covered by said window,” as recited in claim 35.
The Examiner erred in finding that Hotelling discloses or suggests:
enabling scrolling of said content during a period when
said pointing tool is detected to be pressed down in the stationary
tapping position, such that during said scrolling:
the position of said scroll thumb is updated in said
trough accordingly by moving said scroll thumb in said trough;
and
scrolling is allowed to continue, during the detected
stationary tap, such that said position of said scroll thumb moves
past said stationary tapping position in said trough,
as recited in claim 46.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 35—38, 58, 60-63,
and 66 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 46-49, 59, 64, and 65 is
reversed.
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-IN-PART
10