Ex Parte RainistoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 5, 201612870278 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation