Ex Parte Walline et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2017

12554317 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 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.
12/554,317 09/04/2009 Erin K. Walline DC-16784 8269
33438 7590 05/12/2017
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
EXAMINER
LU, HUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2017 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):
tmunoz @ tcchlaw. com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIN K. WALLINE and ORIN OZIAS
Appeal 2017-003610
Application 12/554,317
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—3, 6—9, 12—15, and 18. Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17
have been canceled. Br. 5—7, App’x A.1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed March 30, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed August 30, 2016,
and (3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed November 3, 2016.
Appeal 2017-003610
Application 12/554,317
Invention
Appellants’ invention concerns “a method to enable an auto-scroll
function in which a user does not need to perform multiple scroll gestures
when scrolling through a document.” Spec. 14. A multi-finger gesture
(e.g., a flick) can initiate auto-scroll, and another gesture can stop the
operation. Id. 18, 22. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A method for generating a screen presentation content change
on an information handling system comprising:
generating a screen presentation, the screen presentation
including presentation of a document;
monitoring for a predefined automatic scroll input gesture,
the predefined input gesture comprising a multi-finger input
gesture; and
automatically scrolling through the document in response to
detection of the predefined automatic scroll input gesture; and,
stopping the automatically scrolling upon detection of an
end scroll input gesture, the another predefined input gesture
comprising a multi-finger touch', and
wherein the multi-finger input gesture comprises a flick;
and,
the automatically scrolling continues to scroll through the
document even after removal of the multi-finger input gesture.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Yamada US 6,259,432 B1 July 10, 2001
Haughay US 2009/0307633 A1 Dec. 10, 2009
Fleizach US 2010/0309147 A1 Dec. 9,2010
The Rejections
Claims 1—3, 7—9, and 13—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Haughay and Fleizach. Final Act. 3—5.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Haughay, Fleizach, and Yamada. Final Act. 5—6.
2
Appeal 2017-003610
Application 12/554,317
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HAUGHAY AND FLEIZACH
Regarding independent claim l,2 the Examiner finds Haughay teaches
all its limitation, except those concerning the “input gesture[s]” comprising
multi-finger input gestures. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner turns to Fleizach
in combination with Haughay to teach the missing recitations. Id. at 4.
Appellants argue Fleizach does not teach or suggest an end scroll
input gesture to stop automatic scrolling that comprises a multi-finger touch.
Br. 3. Appellants also contend the alleged deficiency is not supplied by
Haughay. Id.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
Haughay and Fleizach collectively would have taught or suggested
“stopping the automatically scrolling upon detection of an end scroll input
gesture . . . comprising a multi-finger touch”?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. As indicated by the Examiner, the rejection of claim 1
relies on both Haughay and Fleizach. See Ans. 5—6. That is, Haughay
teaches a multi-touch display device enabling acceleration navigation and
free scroll features, which remain active until “an active deactivation event
occurs.” Haughay 190, cited and reproduced in Ans. 5; see also Haughay
2 Claims 1—3, 7—9, and 13—15 are argued as a group. Br. 3. We select claim
1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-003610
Application 12/554,317
137, Fig. 2 (describing and showing a multi-touch display). Haughay
explains an active deactivation event includes “a touch event.” Id. 190. As
such, Haughay teaches stopping an automatic scrolling upon detecting an
end scroll input gesture (e.g., a touch event).
The Examiner acknowledges “Haughay does not specify exactly the
type of touch event that is performed to create an active deactivation event.”
Ans. 5. We agree. However, the Examiner states Haughay’s touch event
“may be a multi-finger touch.” Ans. 5 (citing Haughay 1 55). Specifically,
Haughay teaches that touch events include “physical contact inputs.”
Haughay 1 55. As such, Haughay suggests a touch event can be “a multi-
finger touch” as recited. See id. The Examiner also supplements Haughay’s
discussion with Fleizach. Ans. 6.
Specifically, Fleizach teaches known input gestures used in
multi-touch displays (Fleizach 176) include multi-finger touch gestures.
Ans. 6; Final Act. 4 (both citing Fleizach 1186, Table 1). For example,
Fleizach teaches various known gestures, such as two-finger or three-finger
flicks/taps. Fleizach 1186, Table 1. Such a substitution of these known,
multi-finger touch (e.g., flicks or taps) gestures as taught by Fleizach with
Haughay’s touch event of its multi-touch display, as discussed above, yields
no more than the predictable result of stopping Haughay’s enabled
acceleration navigation/free scroll upon detection of an active deactivation
event that includes a touch event, such as a two-finger or three-finger flick.
See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Accordingly, Haughay and Fleizach collectively teach and suggest
“stopping the automatically scrolling upon detection of an end scroll input
4
Appeal 2017-003610
Application 12/554,317
gesture . . . comprising a multi-finger touch.”3 Appellants have not
persuaded us to the contrary concerning the rejection of independent claim 1
and claims 2, 3, 7—9, and 13—15, which are not separately argued.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Regarding dependent claim 6,4 the Examiner finds that Haughay and
Fleizach do not teach the recited “screen presentation further comprises an
automatic scroll icon; and the scroll icon indicates when the predefined
automatic scroll input gesture has been detected.” Final Act. 5. The
Examiner turns to Yamada in combination with Haughay/Fleizach to teach
these features. Id. at 5—6 (citing Yamada 4:6—8, Fig. 9); Ans. 6 (citing
Yamada 18:10-19, 48—51, Figs. 6(b)—7).
Appellants assert that a scroll icon that indicates “an automatic scroll
icon which indicates when a predefined automatic scroll input gesture has
been detected is patentably distinct from a scroll icon which indicates a
current scrolling speed.” Br. 3. We are not persuaded.
As the Examiner explains, Yamada teaches displaying a scroll icon,
indicating speed and direction. Yamada 18:10—19, Fig. 6(b), cited in Ans. 6.
3 If prosecution continues, the Examiner may consider whether the recitation
“the another predefined input gesture comprising a multi-finger touch” is
definite and satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA). Of note,
claim 1 previously recites “a predefined automatic scroll input gesture” but
does not recite “another predefined input gesture.” Claim 1 also recites the
automatically scrolling stops “upon detection of an end scroll input gesture,”
not upon detecting “another predefined input gesture” as the phrase that
succeeds “upon detection of an end scroll input gesture” in claim 1 implies.
Br. 5, App’x A.
4 Claims 6, 12, and 18 are argued as a group. Br. 3^4. We select claim 6 as
representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal 2017-003610
Application 12/554,317
Yamada explains the cursor changes from a “normal mouse cursor” (e.g.,
Fig. 6(a)) to “a mouse cursor ... to indicate the scrolling” and speed using
“speed indicators located around and enclosing the cursor body” (e.g., Fig.
6(b)). Yamada 18:10-19, Figs. 6(a)-(b). One skilled in the art would have
recognized that some predefined automatic scroll input was detected in order
to display the mouse cursor that indicates scrolling as Yamada describes and
shows in Figure 6(b). See id.', see also Ans. 6 (stating Yamada “display[s] a
scroll icon[,] indicating the scroll the scroll input gesture is occurring.”).
Moreover, when combined with Haughay and Fleizach, the resulting
process yields no more than a predictable result of “monitoring for a
predefined automatic scroll inputs gesture” (see Final Act. 3) and including
“an automatic scroll icon” that “indicates when the predefined automatic
scroll input gesture has been detected,” as recited in order to provide visual
confirmation. See Final Act. 3, 5—6. Appellants provide no persuasive
evidence to the contrary.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of dependent claim 6 and claims 12 and 18, which are not
separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 6—9, 12—15, and 18
under § 103.
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
6