Ex Parte Rainisto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2016

12870278 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 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.
12/870,278 08/27/2010 ROOPE RAINISTO 042933/394913 9500
10949 7590 12/07/2016
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
SONG, DAEHOD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2016 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 ROOPE RAINISTO
Appeal 2016-002345
Application 12/870,2781
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN,
and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 4, 6—13, and 15—22, which
constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 14
have been canceled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002345
Application 12/870,278
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and apparatus for controlling the
scrolling action of displayed information on a touch screen device via a
hovering gesture. Spec. 2:1—3, 20-21. In particular, upon detecting a
hovering gesture based on the sensed presence of an object (100) in close
proximity to the display surface (110) of the touchscreen device causing a
scrolling action thereon, the scrolling area (140) of the device is adjusted
according to the hovering input. Id. at 4:1—17, Fig. 2.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, the at least
one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least
one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
cause a scrolling action in a scrolling area on the basis of a scrolling
input,
detect a hovering input on the basis of sensing presence of an object in
close proximity to an input surface during the scrolling action, and
adjust the scrolling area in accordance with the hovering input.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 4, 6—13, 15—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Alameh et al. (US
2
Appeal 2016-002345
Application 12/870,278
2010/0295781 Al; Nov. 25, 2010) and Soo et al. (US 2010/0090964 Al;
Apr. 15,2010).
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6—8 and the Reply Brief, pages 1—2.2
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as
otherwise indicated hereinbelow, we adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief. Ans. 2—8, Final Act. 2—8. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that the
combination of Alameh and Soo does not teach or suggest “detect a
hovering input on the basis of sensing presence of an object in close
proximity to an input surface during the scrolling action,” and “adjust the
scrolling area in accordance with the hovering input.” App. Br. 6. In
particular, Appellant argues although Alameh discloses configuring a device
to scroll a display when a hover gesture from side to side is performed at a
given distance from the device, Alameh’s hovering gesture serves to change
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 29, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed Dec.
22, 2015) and the Answer (mailed Oct. 22, 2015) for their respective details.
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2016-002345
Application 12/870,278
the scrolling speed, and not to adjust the size or position of the scrolling
area. Id. at 7 (citing Alameh || 111, 112, 140-41). That is, during the
scrolling action, Alameh’s hovering input will cause a change in speed and
not a change in the scrolling area. Id. Further, Appellant argues that Soo
discloses adjusting the size of display elements (as opposed to adjusting the
scrolling area) based on the hover distance. Id. at 8 (citing Alameh 138).
These arguments are not persuasive.
At the outset, consistent with Appellant’s Specification, we note
“scrolling area” as recited in the claim can be broadly but reasonably
construed as any area in the display being scrolled in response to an object
hovering in close proximity thereon. Spec. 3:1—19. As correctly noted by
the Examiner, and undisputed by Appellant, Alameh discloses adjusting the
scrolling speed of a scrolling area based on the detected proximity of an
object hovering over the scrolling area to the scrolling area. Ans. 2—A
(citing Alameh H 33, 112, 140-41). As further correctly noted by the
Examiner, Soo discloses increasing/decreasing the size of a scrolling area
based on the detected proximity of the hovering object to the scrolling area.
Id. at 6 (citing Soo 138). That is, as the object hovering upon scrolling area
206 gets closer thereto, the size of the area increases. Conversely, the size of
the area decreases as the distance between the hovering object and the
scrolling area increases. Soo, Fig. 2. Accordingly, the combination of
Alameh and Soo would predictably result in adjusting the scrolling speed, as
well as the size of the scrolling area, in response to the detected proximity of
a hovering object above the scrolling area. Therefore, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
4
Appeal 2016-002345
Application 12/870,278
Regarding claims 4, 6—13, and 15—22, because Appellant reiterates
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 4, 6—13, and 15—22, and 20 fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1,4, 6-13, and 15-22.
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
5